After 30 Years of the Free Software Foundation, Where Do We Stand? 201
An anonymous reader writes with this interview with John Sullivan, Executive Director of The Free Software Foundation. "There is a growing concern about government surveillance. At the same time, those of us who live and breathe technology do so because it provides us with a service and freedom to share our lives with others. There is a tacit assumption that once we leave the store, the device we have in our pocket, backpack, or desk is ours. We buy a computer, a tablet, a smartphone, and we use applications and apps without even thinking about who really owns the tools and whether we truly own any of it. You purchase a device, yet you are not free to modify it or the software on it in any way. It begs the question of who really owns the device and the software?"
It doesn't 'beg' the question... (Score:5, Informative)
...it raises the question.
Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question... (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you. Fixing that idiom error is a rough toad to hoe. Most people just ankle the line because they're so well heeled.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this particular logical fallacy needs a new name. The phrase is non-intuitive and confusing to me. While the common incorrect usage is quite intuitive.
Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question... (Score:5, Insightful)
The phrase is non-intuitive and confusing to me. While the common incorrect usage is quite intuitive.
The solution is to never use the phrase in your own writing or speaking. If you use it correctly, most people will be confused. If you use it incorrectly (as most people do) you will look uneducated, and may be attacked by pedants. So just avoid it entirely. Instead, use either "raises the question", "circular argument", or "assuming the conclusion".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Begging the question" really means "assuming an answer to a question that was never asked." You're begging the audience to just grant you validation on arguments that support your main argument, without proof or debate.
Wrong usage: "Prison populations are disproportionately black. This begs the question, 'is the justice system racist?'"
It does not beg that question. It raises that question. We don't know the answer to the question (well, we do, but pretend this is the first time somebody noticed that, and
Re: (Score:2)
That's because (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because only a vanishingly small percentage of the population really cares about hacking on their devices. I know this is heresy here on Slashdot, but it's true. 99+% of the population simply don't give a shit whether or not they can build their own applications for the device.
Why?
Because 99+% of the population does not have the necessary time, skill, and interest to do so. It's not that people are dumb - it's that they just don't care about replacing the existing software that lets them do all the things they want to do with their devices.
Re:That's because (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, the majority of iPhones in Asia are jailbroken. Why? Because they care about replacing the existing software because it doesn't let them do all the things they want?
Re:That's because (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, the majority of iPhones in Asia are jailbroken. Why?
so they can installed pirated apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they care about replacing the existing software because it doesn't let them do all the things they want?
so they can installed pirated apps.
Well, the existing software wouldn't let them install pirated apps, so it looks like the OP was correct.
Are you advocating that our devices, which we pay for and own, spy on us and prevent us from doing things the government doesn't approve of? It's a pretty slippery slope from not allowing you to install pirated software to spying on you and sending your inform
Re:That's because (Score:5, Insightful)
let's not get all high and mighty about freedom and privacy. it's about installing pirated software. call a spade a spade, that's all i'm saying.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously, that's the only reason people use PCs and not consoles. On PCs everyone just pirates everything, no one ever pirates anything. That's why there's nothing happening at all on PCs and everything happens on consoles.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually one of the main reasons people in east Asia jailbroke their iDevices was to install alternate keyboards or change the baseband firmware. The Apple Chinese keyboard was pretty awful for a long time, and until recently couldn't be changed without jailbreaking. The baseband firmware controls the phone's radios and because people were having to import phones from overseas or simply wanted to work around bugs in updates they sometimes changed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's because (Score:4, Interesting)
how about because there is no DMCA or other such legal bullshit preventing them from doing what they want with HARDWARE THEY OWN??
Since when has "ownership" ever equated to "I can do anything I want with it?"
In no modern society has "ownership" ever had anything to do with "has no restrictions on the usage of." If you want to debate whether users have adequate freedom to do what they want with their electronics, that is absolutely an arguable topic! But please don't say it has anything to do with "ownership."
Re: That's because (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a car but I am not legally free to disable the seatbelt or airbags. Does that mean I don't own my car?
You are free to do that. Just don't drive on the public roads you don't own or expect your insurance to pay out.
I have a house. I signed a contract when I purchased it saying I would abide by the rules of a "Home Owner's Association" which regulates what colors I can paint it, and how I can decorate it. Does that mean I don't own my house?
Yes, it does. That's why many people avoid them. Or why in some historic districts, get tax writeoffs for selling that ownership so to speak.
I have a book but am not legally allowed to xerox all the pages of it and sell or give those copies away to other people. Does that mean that I don't own the book?
That is exactly what copyrights are about, saying who does own the intellectual property of the book. You merely own an object, unless you purchase ownership of the contents. Or until it hits the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly what copyrights are about, saying who does own the intellectual property of the book. You merely own an object, unless you purchase ownership of the contents. Or until it hits the public domain.
The owner of the physical copy is unlikely to survive long enough to see the contents enter the public domain.
Re:That's because (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a book but am not legally allowed to xerox all the pages of it and sell or give those copies away to other people. Does that mean that I don't own the book?
There is nothing stopping you from xeroxing all the pages of your book and giving away those copies. You might get sued (not likely) by the publisher or other copyright owner after the fact, but there is no technological measure preventing you from doing so. Your photocopy machine will happily copy these pages for you.
This is quite different from a non-jailbroken phone which doesn't allow you to install any app you want.
It's one thing for there to be a law saying you can't do something, and if you do you can be sued by the person you're harming, and quite another thing for a device you own to prevent you from doing what you want with it.
As for seatbelts or airbags, it depends on the exact make and model, but newer cars may throw up some roadblocks if you disable airbags. However, this is really apples and oranges: copyright violation is not a matter of public safety, and isn't even a crime (or shouldn't be, I guess the stupid DMCA makes it one, it's supposed to be a tort only). Anything to do with automobiles is a matter of public safety and therefore deserves a lot of regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
ooh, car analogy. OK, we'll start with that:
In England, there is no law REQUIRING you to WEAR a seatbelt. There is a law REQUIRING front dual airbags, and belts to be fitted on all seats and that all safety devices are BSI certified. That is where the analogy ends. Fucking with vehicle safety devices falls under "criminal negligence" and can get you sent to jail. Fucking with your phone's firmware isn't likely to kill anyone.
House: It's up to you if you want to buy property in a gated community, you take th
Re:That's because (Score:4, Insightful)
ooh, car analogy. OK, we'll start with that:
In England, there is no law REQUIRING you to WEAR a seatbelt. There is a law REQUIRING front dual airbags, and belts to be fitted on all seats and that all safety devices are BSI certified. That is where the analogy ends. Fucking with vehicle safety devices falls under "criminal negligence" and can get you sent to jail. Fucking with your phone's firmware isn't likely to kill anyone.
Are you referring to England UK? Then you are wrong - the Transport Bill was amended in 1981 to require all drivers and passengers in the front of a vehicle fitted with seatbelts to wear them. This became a permanent legal requirement in 1986, extended to rear seat belts for children in 1989 and then further extended to all rear passengers in 1991.
Currently there is a £500 fine if you are caught in a moving vehicle without your seatbelt. It is illegal to remove seatbelts from a vehicle that was sold with them installed. The driver is responsible for all passengers wearing their seatbelt unless they are over the age of 14, and then the passenger becomes liable for any fines.
https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-... [www.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's because (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't confuse North America with the US.
iPhones sold by Apple in Canada without a contract come SIM unlocked by default. If I wanted to wait, I could've had an unlocked iPhone 6 (or 6+) on launch day.
And other places often sell unlocked iPhones.
Plus, on launch day, there are NO jailbreaks for new devices. So unlocking them is basically impossible via the jailbreak route.
And the incidence of jailbreaking in Asia is going down, as it turns out by jailbreaking, you're getting your phone infected with all sorts of spyware. There already are a bunch of iOS spyware that infects jailbroken devices only because they require circumventing the iOS security system in order to function. They can't infect a non-jailbroken phone.
So the only reason for jailbreaking in Asia is to engage in what they consider their basic right - to pirate. I mean, the latest installs of the jailbreaking tools for the past few iOS revisions install some Chinese pirated app store.
Of course, elsewhere on the Internet, the other way to do pirated app installs is to use a re-signer service that uses the enterprise certificate to sign cracked apps so they install on unjailbroken phone. It probably explains why the iOS section of most sites is gathering dust, while the Android section is healthy and growing with dozens of new pirated apps posted daily.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, China != Asia.
Re:That's because (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been using Linux since the 2.0.0 kernel debuted in 1996. I have not rooted my phone, because unlike the Linux boxes that I've set up as my workstations, I need my phone to work 100% of the time. If I break my computer it's not a big deal, I have both other hobbies that don't use computers, and I have other computers themselves. By contrast I have one phone, and based on both the costs for subscribing multiple handsets and the cost of those handsets themselves (and their penchant for only being replaced when they're actually physically broken in my case) I do not have a spare phone to revert to should I break the current one.
I'm a geek that figures out how just about everything works, but I don't necessarily feel a need to take everything apart simply because I know how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
" do not have a spare phone to revert to should I break the current one. "
So buy one then.
Anyway, if you need your phone for ALL of your work you really should get a better job since you're obviously tied to the office 24/7/365.
Re: (Score:2)
Working around operating system bugs (Score:2)
Android 4.3 "Jelly Bean 3" introduced a serious bug that caused it not to recognize certain Bluetooth keyboards, instead confusing them with Bluetooth gamepads. Rooting and renaming a keyboard layout was the most successful workaround until Android 4.4 "KitKat" fixed it.
"Ownership" isn't about hacking your device (Score:4, Insightful)
> only a vanishingly small percentage of the population really cares about hacking on their devices.
I don't hack the software on my laptop, but it's all free software and I know it's written by people who aren't trying to spy on me or to give me inconveniences so that I'll buy some premium version.
If you have Window, then MS has owned your PC.
If you have free software, then you "own" it.
Re: (Score:2)
This idea that running Linux makes you invulnerable to intrusion and spying is a stupid and dangerous way to think about security.
Linux machines get hacked all the time because people like you think just running a particular OS is enough.
Diverse double-compiling (Score:2)
Would recompiling the entire system from source defeat "intercepted in transit and been tampered with for spying purposes"?
If you're worried that your compiler binaries have the "trusting trust" virus proposed by Ken Thompson, you can detect that with David A. Wheeler's "diverse double-compiling" construction [dwheeler.com]. It involves "bootstrapping" a compiler (compiling it with another compiler and then recompiling it with the resulting compiler) and then making sure all copies are bit-identical. Install three differe
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you have read and understood ALL the source code for same.
Good luck with that....
Pay someone to audit code your company uses (Score:2)
The difference with free software is that you can pay someone to understand the source code for you, as has been happening with OpenSSL. You can also reap the benefit of the published results of any other such audit project.
Re: (Score:3)
"bootstrapping" a compiler (compiling it with another compiler and then recompiling it with the resulting compiler)
Why should different compilers produce bit-identical machinecode from a C-source as big and complex as a compiler itself? Different code generators can make different choices, resulting in different code.
You're bootstrapping the same compiler on all three base compilers, which means the second stage is run on functionally identical compilers. The output of functionally identical compilers on the same input is thus bit-identical. So the first stage is not bit-identical, but the second is. To make it clearer, I shall spell out all steps:
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The code has to be fully audited until we can know for sure. Also, if using a compiled app, we have to verify that the binary we are using is actually built from that source.
It's very dangerous to write it all off by saying that it's good because it's "free software" or "open source". The attackers will eventually learn that simply by using those labels to deliver software is a good way to get unsuspecting nerds to blindly install all sorts of shit.
Re:That's because (Score:5, Insightful)
That might have been true a couple of years ago, but now that it's common knowledge that your device is probably spying on you, people are suddenly interested in how to make their devices NOT spy on them.
Re: (Score:2)
That, and the devices are becoming less and less hackable while simultaneously becoming more and more disposable.
Re: (Score:2)
However I suspect a larger number than 1% care about being able to fix a broken device without throwing it away and buying a new one, or returning it to the manufacturer for repairs. They don't have to know about how to fix the device they just need to know about someone who can do this. It's like the old television repair service, the market at the time wanted to have their expensive televisions fixed and would not have accepted an excuse that they needed to get a new model.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why such services actually exist. For example, in the nearest town (pop. ~30,000) there are two shops that will do repairs on things like iPhones/Android phones (the usual stuff - repairing broken screens, replacing dead batteries, removing the SIM lock from any locked phones, replacing home buttons that have stopped working and the usual other wear-and-tear failures that smartphones suffer over time).
Re: (Score:2)
3rd AC comment is golden (Score:5, Insightful)
We assume the information gatherers track us at every chance, often with our tacit permission.
No longer bordering on tinhattery, there exists the very real possibility everything you purchase in the electronics section might report your doings for fun and profit. If you can break the phone, why wouldn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
I know I rooted my V3, because before it wouldn't even boot... after I flashed it, the thing came up with a spanking new interface (Motorola default rather than the Vodafone OEM theme) and it has worked perfectly ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
no, I replaced a firmware that wasn't working - period - with another that thankfully allowed me to use the handset for its intended purpose: an IMEI-tagged receiver handset with a subscriber number contained on a card with which I was then able to make and receive telephone calls. Whether it "calls home" or not on the new firmware is neither issue nor concern for me, as I don't take it out when I leave the house and I don't discuss sensitive issues over the phone to anyone. That's not paranoia, that's oper
Re: (Score:2)
But the context of this conversation is taking control of your phone to prevent it being used to spy on you, and you haven't done that.
Whether it "calls home" or not on the new firmware is neither issue nor concern for me, as I don't take it out when I leave the house and I don't discuss sensitive issues over the phone to anyone.
You never take your mobile phone out of the house? Why use a mobile at all, then?
Re: (Score:2)
it's prepay. No line rental.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you know if you successfully rooted your phone and replaced the system? Might look like you did... How's that for a tin-hat?
Yo dawg! We heard you like tricks. So we put a trick your trick...
You are more Free than they let on (Score:5, Informative)
Out of the box, the devices are not "Free" in the sense you can modify them directly.
But you ARE legally able to Free any device. Jailbreaking was explicitly declared legal to do, and indeed plenty of people do so.
As long as you are legally able to Free a device, I think we are OK - I don't see the need to force a device to be inherently insecure for millions so thousands of people can expend no effort to modify how a device works.
I still donate to the FSF (and begrudgingly the EFF) every year because I think it's good someone is keeping an eye on all this and striving to make things that are wholly Free. But I just don't see where it's realistic or even a good idea to hold every product to that standard.
Re: (Score:2)
care to give an example of where it's not a good idea to jailbreak something you OWN to get full use out of it?
Re: (Score:2)
care to give an example of where it's not a good idea to jailbreak something you OWN to get full use out of it?
Letting your dog roam free on the streets rather being in the "jail" of your back yard??
When you don't know what you are doing (Score:3)
care to give an example of where it's not a good idea to jailbreak something you OWN to get full use out of it?
Someone who jailbreaks a phone and then catches a load of malware would be one example.
A better one would be doing something like altering an ECU in a car and then changing parameters without understanding what you are doing, and blowing an engine...
Don't make me break out the Uncle Ben quote man.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet there are 3rd party kits to modify the ECUs (or outright replace) of a lot of vehicles.
Of course, doing that would void your warranty if they could show the modified ECU caused the failure, which I am entirely OK with. Vendors should put the keys in your hand, but if you turn that lock you take your fate in your own hands.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet there are 3rd party kits to modify the ECUs (or outright replace) of a lot of vehicles.
Why the "And yet", of course there are so that you get a kind of fixed upgrade without having to have much expertise. It's further modifications that are possibly a bad idea depending on what you are doing (and even some of the kits may be depending on how good the kit maker was at understanding the implications of the settings they were using ).
There are also instructions on how to jailbreak on YouTube...
Vendors
Re: (Score:2)
Car vendors don't weld the hood shut or put other things into the engine to prevent you from making that modification.
Jailbreaking would be akin to having to saw open the hood or find a way to trick the vendor-controlled hood lock to unlatch and let you in. And Ford/GM would be petit
Re: (Score:2)
car makers don't support custom EMUs because they don't know other people's EMUs and how they interact with their engines, they only know their own EMUs and they're the ones they support. Why should Ford support a Renault unit?
Re: (Score:2)
One would think that you'd have some idea of a: what you're doing and b: the consequences of what you're attempting not to mention c: the risks involved with what you're doing (thinking the EMU here) before you embark on such ventures. Otherwise it becomes an exercise in stating the bleedin' obvious right here. Don't want to blow your engine? Then don't fuck with the EMU. Don't want to brick your $600 phone? Then don't flash it. Prepared to take the risk? Good luck. On another branch of this conversation,
Re: (Score:2)
Except on tablets, where it's still illegal. And Apple will be right behind you to close that hole and petition the Library of Congress to make jailbreaking of your handset illegal.
Devices do not need to be inherently insecure, they should be secure by d
Re: (Score:2)
Except on tablets, where it's still illegal.
The rationale given applied to games on consoles, not tablets. Tablets are still a grey area and you can't point to a single person who had action taken against them... if anything were tried at this point they would fall undertake same ruling.
Besides, anyone jailbreaking is probably downloading torrents already, so why does legality matter again? People smart enough to jailbreak are also smart enough to manage that risk.
But said security needs to put the keys i
Re: (Score:2)
Due to the way the DMCA is written, jailbreaking is presumed illegal unless the LoC gives an exemption. An exemption was explicitly requested for tablets and was denied via tortured logic. Consoles were covered too. Phones were retained, but cellphone unlocking was covered under the tortured legalese as well, and made illegal (t
Re: (Score:2)
Except on tablets, where it's still illegal.
Does it really matter? I mean Free Software doesn't want proprietary developers standing on their shoulders so they have the GPL to force their position, proprietary product developers don't want Free Software leveraging all the work they have done creating their hardware platform so they lock it down.
If we want Free Software on these kinds of products then the Free Software movement is going to have to address the fact that there is no platform on which to run. Proprietary product companies went out and de
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they are prone to wild goose chases that are a horrific waste of funds.
They still do some good work though and since there's no-one else doing quite what they do, I keep donating and holding my nose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that being "legal" isn't enough. iPhones are only able to be freed with a jailbreak because of Apple's bugs that are exploitable to gain root access. This is ridiculous and it's the reason I haven't bought any Apple device in many years. Buying an iPhone to jailbreak is kind of like buying an appliance knowing (and hoping) it has some kind of structural flaw (a chipped corner perhaps, or maybe missing screws) so that one get to device's innards. Except in physical machines I can always open them i
Not true (Score:2)
iPhones are only able to be freed with a jailbreak because of Apple's bugs that are exploitable to gain root access.
That's not at all true. They have pretty much always been jail breakable over USB, because the device itself needs some means to load new updates no matter what.
What are less frequent are un-tethered jailbreaks, those do rely on the kinds of bugs you are talking about. But that is not necessary to jailbreak; it just makes the process easier. No-one ever said Freedom was guaranteed to be an
Re:You are more Free than they let on (Score:4, Insightful)
Not having root access to my device is not legitimate? Are you serious? How can you think that is appropriate? Perhaps you are an app developer who's been burned. If so, I'm sorry. But two wrongs don't make a right. You're right to make money on your own proprietary app is legitimate. But so is my right to have full control of my own devices. If those come into conflict (I don't think they do), then it can be resolved with existing laws. To justify removing users's freedoms to preserve your income stream is a bit shaky. That is if you are a disgruntled app developer.
In any case, what if I want to develop my own homebrew apps using whatever tools I want or come up with, other than Xcode? Or access the raw hardware sensors directly and do cool things outside the Apple-defined garden? Or the ability for others to do this and for me to be able to run their cool stuff on my phone, tablet, or other device. Or the ability to replace the system software completely?
Right now in the RC toy world companies from China are shaking up the transmitter market by introducing low-cost transmitters that are completely open and hackable. Homebrew firmwares are very popular and do amazing things that the incumbent companies only offer on their most expensive radios. It's a beautiful mix of open hardware and open software. Niche market sure but it illustrates what can happen.
And Android does have some of this going for it, but most phones are, like Apple's phones, rather locked down and must be cracked open, sadly. Though google never tried to make that very difficult thank goodness. Still annoying, but less so than on iPhone, especially with sanctioned, boot-unlockable phones out there, such as the Nexus 5.
In the end it just comes down to personal freedom with my devices. On Android, thanks to root access, I have a number of utilities I use on a regular basis such as an ssh daemon that can give me full access to the file system (good for tweaking obscure settings, performing legitimate backups, etc). Titanium Backup is the killer app for rooted Android phones I think, though I confess Google made it less necessary for most users by syncing apps and data to the cloud (privacy!).
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you need to jailbreak your device? The "legitimate" reasons to jailbreak a device are beyond flimsy.
Seriously? I probably shouldn't respond to an AC troll...
I'll more than likely end up rooting my kid's tablet (more than likely using towelroot, seems easy enough). The main reason I haven't is that I'll catch all sorts of hell if I lose the saved states on several apps. There are two main reasons, no piracy involved:
1. I can't currently update any apps. My google-fu suggests there are duplicate files that need to be deleted, and neither I nor the installer have permissions to do so. (OT rant: WTF is up wit
Jailbreaking doesn't grant software freedom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your still prevented from making changes to the proprietary components within.
I don't see how that follows. You can always open up the device and replace components if you really wanted to; it's just very hard.
It also makes no sense to me to frame Freedom in the context of hardware used to build a device. I can't turn my car into a hot air balloon either but it's not realistic for anyone to ship a car with a giant gas fabric bag in case anyone may want to.
Freedom is being able to do what you want, with t
The FSF has failed (Score:3, Interesting)
While many of the FSF goals are laudable, the real world has intervened.
There are people out there who just want to cause trouble, mischief, or otherwise harm others and the easiest way for the masses to protect themselves from this threat is to use a walled garden like Apple has built. The masses have spoken, and after weighing the costs of the walled garden (censorship etc) vs the benefits (no viruses), the masses have opted for safety with the added benefit of stores with trained staff to help them with any troubles they do run into.
Furthermore, the FSF shot themselves in the feet with the reactionary GPLv3 and their refusal to allow gcc be useful for third party applications (open source or otherwise).
If Apple could have continued using gcc, then it is likely LLVM/clang would never have had the success that it has.
If FSF had left things alone and stayed with the GPLv2, then corporations wouldn't have run away from any GPLv3 software, with the developer community following.
IF the FSF was truly concerned about the hardware issue, then they should have gone into the hardware business instead of trying to control it via the GPL. The only way to ensure open hardware is to make it yourself, because as the GPLv3 has demonstrated when you try to control with a software license then the hardware companies suddenly find the money to invest in alternative software instead of going the easy route of using your GPL'd software.
But then again this is the type of behavior that brought you the attempt to take over the Linux kernel by renaming GNU/Linux when they were incapable of writing their own kernel.
Re: (Score:3)
The masses have spoken, and after weighing the costs of the walled garden (censorship etc) vs the benefits (no viruses), the masses have opted for safety with the added benefit of stores with trained staff to help them with any troubles they do run into.
People want independently QA'ed software, which is one of the roles Linux distributions provide.
If Apple could have continued using gcc, then it is likely LLVM/clang would never have had the success that it has.
LLVM/Clang is not a failure for the FSF, its a success for Apple.
There needs to be a copyleft licence that restricts distribution on the same medium as non-free software, without it we will lose the IoT as well.
Re: (Score:2)
There needs to be a copyleft licence that restricts distribution on the same medium as non-free software, without it we will lose the IoT as well.
That point is addressed in the Free Software Definition and any license containing said clause would not be considered Free.
Re: (Score:2)
That point is addressed in the Free Software Definition and any license containing said clause would not be considered Free.
Nothing last forever, the FSF will inovate or die, like everyhting else.
Its rediculous that the FSF is the biggest enabler of proprietary software companies, its sad that the community cant see its mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has already done this for you, as GPL software is banned from the app store. How do you like that?
There is no value in trying to create a Free softwarte layer on top of a non-free platorm.
It would be deceptive if Apple where to allow GPL'ed software and give people only the illusion of freedom. Apple will never willingly give owners control of the hardware, so it is how it has to be.
Re: (Score:3)
> [FSF] refusal to allow gcc be useful for third party applications (open source or otherwise).
[Citation] ?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing what he is referring to is the ongoing debate developers are having with Stallman over accessibility to GCC's abstract syntax tree. Many developers want this in order to be able to do auto-complete, refactoring and other IDE options within programs like EMACS but Stallman is concerned that this could lead to that abstract source tree (AST) being used as input to proprietary compiler backends, which he sees as bad.
This is another page in the book of hamstringing GCC and EMACS users in the name o
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing what he is referring to is the ongoing debate developers are having with Stallman over accessibility to GCC's abstract syntax tree.
I wonder what the young Richard Stallman who was first alienated by closed-source software at MIT would think of the old Richard Stallman's stance on this? It seems to me that the young idealist would have thought that if a little freedom to use and modify software in any way is good, more freedom would be better.
I honestly haven't been able to reconcile Stallman's stances on various recent issues with his stated philosophy. To me, a lot of what he's stated recently such as the LLVM thing and his insisten
Re: (Score:2)
if a little freedom to use and modify software in any way is good, more freedom would be better.
That's where you misunderstand Stallman's philosophy. Modify "in any way" is not necessarily good, and can be used for evil. He wants software that is modified only in ways that require others to be able to modify your modifications. That's the whole point of the GPL, copyleft system. "You can have this software, but when you distribute it in binary form you must provide the source code for it and any derivative works." If he was fine with "in any way" he'd have written the BSD license, where you can do any
Re: (Score:2)
BSD adherents take issue with Stallman's use of the word "free," as they believe software that you can do whatever you want with, even if it means making it less free later, is more "free," as it comes with fewer restrictions. To me, I think of "free" as a verb, rather than an adjective. Stallman, FSF type of "freedom" is about liberating themselves and others from restrictions, now and in the future. BSD "free" is an adjective, meaning "permissive." You're permitted to do whatever you want, including remove liberty later.
You've just put a nickel in me for one of my favorite gripes about "Free Software" (note the capital letters). If it's really about "freedom" than why isn't it called "Freedom Software" or maybe even "Freed (from shackles) Software". To me, this has always seemed like a classic bait-and-switch. Most users are initially attracted by the free-as-in-beer meaning of "free", then someone explains, "No, it's really about freedom - that's what's really important."
Perhaps Stallman and company could be forgiven f
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that has been tried (by others) and did not hold up in court.
If he could, believe me, Stallman would.
You called Stallman a hypocrite, and love him or hate him...I can't think of anyone on the planet who is less deserving of that title. He is blindingly, crippling consistent.
Re:The FSF has failed (Score:4, Interesting)
The FSF has failed
Have you used Linux? Did you submit your comment to a server running Linux? That's because the FSF didn't fail.
Stumping for proprietors on /. (Score:2)
Ah, the flames from someone without much finesse: Premature declaration of failure to discourage further examination ("The masses have spoken..."), misidentification of fault ("If Apple could have continued using gcc...", "[The FSF] should have gone into the hardware business..."), citing trends with no backing and overvaluing business interests ("...then corporations wouldn't have run away from any GPLv3 software..."), and outright lying about intention and execution ("...weighing the costs of the walled g
Yeah, article & responses are sad; blame O'Rei (Score:2)
Hard to imagine so little real discussion on this on Slashdot if this article had been posted ten years ago. So much has changed in some ways. For an alternative view of what happened that blames Tim O'Reilly (perhaps too strongly?), see this long article by Evgeny Morozov, a part of which is below:
"The Meme Hustler: Tim O'Reilly's crazy talk"
http://www.thebaffler.com/arti... [thebaffler.com]
"While the brightest minds of Silicon Valley are "disrupting" whatever industry is too crippled to fend off their advances, something
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, my own current work on all that, just checked in a new update to a version of the Pointrel System yesterday which I am please with conceptually. I use it here:
https://github.com/pdfernhout/... [github.com]
But the main repository for that version of the Pointrel System is here:
https://github.com/pdfernhout/... [github.com]
It has ideas in it that could be useful for a Simple Federated Wiki like Ward is working towards and other knowledge sharing tools beyond that. At the core of this version of the system is the id
Re:The FSF has failed (Score:4, Insightful)
Permissive open source licenses allow people to choose who they collaborate with and how much
Permissive open source licences allow freeloaders to choose if they should their modifications with the non-freeloaders who have already chosen to share with them.
Which is why the BSDs have had only limited success compared to GNU/Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Permissive open source licences allow freeloaders to choose if they should their modifications with the non-freeloaders who have already chosen to share with them.
Forgive me, but I've never understood what harm freeloaders do by freeloading on people who wanted their software to be "free" in the first place. I suppose you could claim that it's unfair or whatever, but in my own case, if I'm giving something away, I basically want people to take it. Isn't that axiomatic?
Re: (Score:2)
Permissive licences dont demand its users or developers behave a certain way, but that doesnt mean they dont wish its users and developers behave a certain way.
Its a greater gift if you give it freely, if you have to ask or demand something its not as special. Making some demands to achieve a greater good is how copyleft sees it.
I do vagually remember on the BSD developers complaing about the lack of financial support, but i guess each case is different.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't so much "freeloaders" I worry about with regards to permissive licenses. It's the "embrace, extend, extinguish" model. It's what Google will eventually do with Android. Start all "look at us being all Open Source!" And then they get a big head start using OS libraries and contributions from a community, but once they have enough market share (which they do) slowly start closing it off from the top down. They can't close the kernel (which is the whole point of the GPL and why permissive licenses are
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Failure (Score:5, Interesting)
We where onto a good thing, but we failed to adapt.
We failed to adapt to the commercial attacks that make closed source software the gatekeeper to software freedom.
We lost the mobile space, Android is full of crap software running on a Free kernel that hardly anyone can use freely.
Free software is free beer that corporations on-sell minus the libre.
Re: (Score:2)
The dedication to pushing a free desktop is admirable, but it takes a disruptive product to effect real change in an established market. The disruptive aspect of it was supposed to be "freedom" but that wasn't enough. As you highlighted, the new smartphone and tablet categories still don't have entrants from the free software community so in that area it's another case of trying to play catch-up with the only ace up your sleeve being the freedom card.
With these new 'device' categories it is even harder beca
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no. The disruptive aspect was supposed to be price and pace of development. The assumption was that given Microsoft dominant position they would use it to raise prices sharply and grow revenue and margins not focus on almost monopolistic marketshare. In other words do on the desktop something much more similar to what they did on server. And then like server Linux would be a cheaper alternative.
Similar this low price strategy meant they
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no. The disruptive aspect was supposed to be price and pace of development.
I suppose that's a fair assessment, ultimately price didn't matter since OEM licenses for Windows were so cheap that people wouldn't even notice the cost built in to the PC and while there has always been a lot of development going on it hasn't been particularly unified so there is a lot of duplicated effort in order to do a bunch of things in slightly different ways.
Strongly copylefted free software + enforcement (Score:4, Interesting)
See Brad Kuhn's talk about the future of copyleft [linux.org.au] (mirror [slingshot.co.nz]) for the cure to non-copylefted free software—to keep software freedom in derivative works, license with strongly copylefted free software licenses (the AGPL version 3 or later being the best choice now) and then enforce the license.
high horses (Score:3)
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc all give me the freedom to share my life with others if I so desire.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Troll harder.
A lot better than before (Score:3, Interesting)
"Where Do We Stand?" (Score:2)
Well, MS office running on Wine made made my wife cry yesterday. So in my house, free software is on the defensive.
iOS enterprise SDK (Score:2)
I don't get the FSF on this
The FSF could rectify this easily by running their own enterprise server: https://developer.apple.com/pr... [apple.com] for iOS. Then they let people point at their servers and not Apple's (or in addition to Apple's). It could be as open or as closed as they want it to be. Why year after year after ye
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if I see the employment requirement. I know for a fact that the enterprise SDK is usable for 1099s and not just W2s. Moreover even if true, the FSF could just ask Apple and get an exemption for themselves. Apple has a long track record of having strict rules and then exempting on a case by case basis where they believed it was good for the ecosystem.