PDA

View Full Version : Whod do you agree with?



ubuntuman001
September 5th, 2006, 11:50 PM
who do you agree with in this (http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/31/stallman-linux-opensource_cz_dl_0831stallman.html?boxes=custom) article, Linus or Stallman?

Iandefor
September 6th, 2006, 12:25 AM
Torvalds. The GPLv3 is polarizing the community and locking down on freedoms. It's also introducing yet another licensing concern - "Can I link against this library? It's GPLv3? Damn." It won't help FLOSS adoption (and will probably actually hinder it) and is less free than the GPLv2.

croak77
September 6th, 2006, 12:29 AM
I go where gcc goes ( and other GNU software ). So, I guess RMS.

maniacmusician
September 6th, 2006, 12:30 AM
phew, thats some heavy political stuff, I don't really want to get into it too much. it's about 50/50 for me. I don't like DRM too much, so i don't personally have any problem with that clause. but I suppose that if one is to truly think open source, then we should allow it like everything else. After all, it is ultimately the user's choice whether they want to use it or not.

As for the first clause, I disagree with stallman. If companies have patents out, why shouldn't they be allowed to bring infringement claims against programs that are stealing their technology?

sorry if i interpreted something incorrectly, kind of in a hurry here.

kanem
September 6th, 2006, 01:47 AM
What a biased (and factually wrong) article.
The trouble involves Richard M. Stallman, the anti-corporate radical..
two camps within the Linux community are facing off: the pragmatists, like Torvalds and the corporations, versus the extremists, led by Stallman.The article even calls the GNU Manifesto, which doesn't even talk about companies, anti-corporate. Did the author even read it? Also, the article claims that companies like Red Hat may not be able to have a mix of GPL3 and GPL2 software becasue they are not compatible. GPL2 is obviously incompatible with commercial closed liscenses, but that doesn't stop distros from legally distributing closed source software (for a fee) right now.

This is just the mainstream media's version of a typical slashdot anti-RMS troll.

Anyway, I agree with RMS. This extension is only closing a loophole that allowed people to use GPL'd software but deny users the four freedoms.

bobbybobington
September 6th, 2006, 02:14 AM
I like RMS (who couldn't?:-k ). But me thinks Linus is right on this one.

atrus123
September 6th, 2006, 03:11 AM
Linus of course.

I find Stallman just sorta annoying.

terminatingzero
September 6th, 2006, 03:45 AM
Stallman hands down; for those of us who program software under GPL licensing the intent of the new license is to protect us as well as protect the users from DRM and Trusted Computing.

"HP has asked Stallman to eliminate a clause that would prevent companies that distribute GPLv3 programs from bringing patent infringement claims against those programs in the future. Stallman has refused to remove the clause."

"And Linus Torvalds, who created Linux 15 years ago while he was a college student, doesn't like another GPLv3 clause that would prohibit companies from using GPLv3 code to create digital rights management (DRM) schemes. Torvalds says he won't adopt the new license and will stick with GPLv2 instead."

Not moving the kernel to GPL 3 will leave it open to Sony DRM like malware.

If you are thinking that DRM is just as it is stated to protect the copyrights or "Intellectual Property" of others you are mistaken.

I have a thread for Microsoft DRM and Trusted Computing with many links to info please take a look.

I just think I should add I am not trying to get anyone bent out of shape or cause conflict however I don't believe in any way shape or form that leaving the kernel under GPL 2 will be in the best interests of the developers or the users.

By the way; the patent clause protects developers from bogus patent infringment suits.In which case if the recent court ruling goes through we will be seeing a lot of.

banjobacon
September 6th, 2006, 03:58 AM
Not moving the kernel to GPL 3 will leave it open to Sony DRM like malware.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this complete BS?

SoundMachine
September 6th, 2006, 04:13 AM
Torvalds. The GPLv3 is polarizing the community and locking down on freedoms. It's also introducing yet another licensing concern - "Can I link against this library? It's GPLv3? Damn." It won't help FLOSS adoption (and will probably actually hinder it) and is less free than the GPLv2.

Yup.

darkhatter
September 6th, 2006, 04:14 AM
red hat, suse, ubuntu, and Linus they supply me with good products and stallman stands in the way of that, cut him loose my suse pre-loaded laptops are about to come and no one is taking that away from me, I mean no one :evil:

terminatingzero I would rather have the trusted computing, and drm then have nothing at all.

SoundMachine
September 6th, 2006, 04:21 AM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this complete BS?

It's complete BS.

Sony's rootkit would not have to rely on any kernel code anyway so it's entirely irrelevant.

What WOULD be a nice thing to stop not only DRM rootkits but all sorts of rootkits would be Trusted Computing. Since the Linux kernel already has TPM support all that is needed is a userland interface and the tools to configure it.

croak77
September 6th, 2006, 04:23 AM
red hat, suse, ubuntu, and Linus they supply me with good products and stallman stands in the way of that

Try having red hat, suse, ubuntu, without GNU software.

darkhatter
September 6th, 2006, 04:32 AM
Try having red hat, suse, ubuntu, without GNU software.

you guys are all Ubuntu users you should be angry, in case you may not have noticed Ubuntu is owned by a company just as Red Hat and Suse so if this affects Red Hat its going to affect Ubuntu one way or another. Even if Red Hat goes off and create they're own version and keep everything v2 its going to hurt Ubuntu, Think about that for awhile

terminatingzero
September 6th, 2006, 04:32 AM
Actually guys i was referring to the damaging aspect of Sony's DRM debacle.

Not moving the kernel to GPL 3 would give them the legal ability to attempt to embed DRM.

darkhatter
September 6th, 2006, 04:36 AM
Actually guys i was referring to the damaging aspect of Sony's DRM debacle.

Not moving the kernel to GPL 3 would give them the legal ability to attempt to embed DRM.

they aren't attempting anything with me, they already lost my money all movies I own will be bootlegged, even if buying a copy is easier. we need to kill off the companies and the only way to do it is to keep our money away from them.

maniacmusician
September 6th, 2006, 04:38 AM
yeah but i think they've figured out that it doesn't help them very much business wise so they wont attempt that again anytime soon. There was a huge outcry and they had to recall CDs and whatnot.

darkhatter
September 6th, 2006, 04:42 AM
yeah but i think they've figured out that it doesn't help them very much business wise so they wont attempt that again anytime soon. There was a huge outcry and they had to recall CDs and whatnot.

They're going to try it again, they learned from they're mistakes. Do you think blue-ray is going to be any better?

SoundMachine
September 6th, 2006, 04:47 AM
Actually guys i was referring to the damaging aspect of Sony's DRM debacle.

Not moving the kernel to GPL 3 would give them the legal ability to attempt to embed DRM.

As i said, GPLv3 or not wouldn't have mattered one bit when it comes to something like Sony's rootkit.

SoundMachine
September 6th, 2006, 04:51 AM
They're going to try it again, they learned from they're mistakes. Do you think blue-ray is going to be any better?

All it means is that people will get pissed off by the restrictions and say "screw it, it's free on TPB anyway".

terminatingzero
September 6th, 2006, 06:06 AM
My apologies for my earlier statement.


Not moving the kernel to GPL 3 will leave it open to Sony DRM like malware.

What I had intended to get across was the fact that if the kernel was not moved to GPL 3 then Corporations with no intent to do things for the people and for what is right would take it embed DRM and use it in technologies that that would go against the whole GNU philosophy not to mention would be that of an assault on the consumers and end-users.

The problem with Trusted Computing is only the fact that new DRM technologies will be hard wired into it thus making it more difficult to circumvent for Fair Use purposes. There is more info on the linked pages in the Microsoft DRM and Trusted computing thread than I can give at the moment but yes if Trusted Computing were used for it's original intentions then I would say good also however it seems the intentions have changed.

I think that one thing to remember is that the GNU Philosophy is there for us as well as the fact that were it not for Richard Stallman and the GPL none of this great software we have now may have ever come to be.

All I ask is that we remain neutral towards one another. I understand that what I meant and what I said earlier were two different things and I again apologize for that.

I also ask for a favor; in the Backyard the Microsoft DRM and Trusted Computing thread I started resides; please read all of the links then make your decision. Just humor me.;)

SoundMachine
September 6th, 2006, 06:21 AM
My apologies for my earlier statement.



What I had intended to get across was the fact that if the kernel was not moved to GPL 3 then Corporations with no intent to do things for the people and for what is right would take it embed DRM and use it in technologies that that would go against the whole GNU philosophy not to mention would be that of an assault on the consumers and end-users.

Ahhhh, you are talking about embedded versions of Linux? But then they could just use the Linux kernel and slap on DRM code as a separate userland app in their device so it wouldn't really matter, would it?


The problem with Trusted Computing is only the fact that new DRM technologies will be hard wired into it thus making it more difficult to circumvent for Fair Use purposes. There is more info on the linked pages in the Microsoft DRM and Trusted computing thread than I can give at the moment but yes if Trusted Computing were used for it's original intentions then I would say good also however it seems the intentions have changed.

Well, sure thing, DRM will get more difficult to circumvent, you may even have to download stuff for free from any of the thousands of sites out there to circumvent it personally. Trusted computing and TPM chips aren't really a bad thing in itself though and can be very useful for security reasons which is why I welcome the inclusion of TPM support in the Linux Kernel.


I think that one thing to remember is that the GNU Philosophy is there for us as well as the fact that were it not for Richard Stallman and the GPL none of this great software we have now may have ever come to be.

All I ask is that we remain neutral towards one another. I understand that what I meant and what I said earlier were two different things and I again apologize for that.

I also ask for a favor; in the Backyard the Microsoft DRM and Trusted Computing thread I started resides; please read all of the links then make your decision. Just humor me.;)

Ok, I'll read it. :)

Well, I'll stay out of that thread for both my own and your sake.

weatherman
September 6th, 2006, 10:30 AM
I'm with rms, I also suspect that if the clauses suggested by rms are cancelled there will be some sort of forking in many linux projects.

prizrak
September 6th, 2006, 02:28 PM
I'm with Linus. I know I might get flamed for this but the reality of the world is that GNU wasn't able to create a complete OS the HURD project was "started" years before the Linux project and is still not even close to having an operational kernel.

As far as "Take GNU out of Ubuntu and see where it leaves you", all those GNU apps are maintained by so many developers that FSF is pretty much irrelevant at this point. I do think that the GPLv3 is bad for the community and FOSS adoption. Just by the debate it is creating it's hindering our progress. How many large organizations are going to switch to Linux if they don't know what's gonna happen to it after half the software goes v3 and the other stays v2.

bruce89
September 6th, 2006, 02:49 PM
Sony's nasty XCP used lots of GPL'd and LGPL'd code without complying with the licences. They ripped off the copyright of the LAME mp3 encoder, mpglib, FAAC, id3lib (ID3 tag reading and writing), mpg123 and the VLC media player.

TiVo are ripping off Linux, they should stop their DRM which disables modified versions.

Lord Illidan
September 6th, 2006, 03:01 PM
Linus.
I don't believe Linux has advanced enough that we can impose this much on other companies. If Linus became really strong, like say, 10% marketshare, then, yes.

Extremism is not going to help. For now, open source is going to sit with DRM.

Kindred
September 6th, 2006, 03:20 PM
I lean toward supporting RMS on both those issues in principle, but think implementing such changes could be rather messy as hinted at in the article.

kanem
September 6th, 2006, 04:01 PM
Two of the software freedoms that the GPL is supposed to protect are:
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1)
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)

If DRM is allowed in GPL'd programs then a person can take the Linux kernel (or any other GPL'd app), put it in their device to sell, and DRM it so that only their version of the code runs on the device. No more adapting the program to your needs, no more improving the program. We're back to the days of having to wait until the company decides to issue an update, and having to pay for it to boot.


Ahhhh, you are talking about embedded versions of Linux? But then they could just use the Linux kernel and slap on DRM code as a separate userland app in their device so it wouldn't really matter, would it?But in that case I could still change the kernel code and use it on that same machine that it's embedded in.

If you (not you personally SoundMachine, to everyone) don't care about these two freedoms I have to ask, what are you using and supporting Free software for? These are the software freedoms that make Free software what it is. This is what the GPL is for. These extensions in GPL3 aren't just the FSF becoming more extreme and going too far. These extenstions would have been in the original GPL 20 years ago if the FSF had been able to see DRM and web applications coming. Both of these things can violate the freedoms that the GPL tries to ensure. If a person has a problem with these extensions, then I'd say they have a problem with the spirit of the GPL in general and should be using and releasing software under a BSD style liscence instead (not that there's anything wrong with that).

bruce89
September 6th, 2006, 04:06 PM
If DRM is allowed in GPL'd programs then a person can take the Linux kernel (or any other GPL'd app), put it in their device to sell, and DRM it so that only their version of the code runs on the device. No more adapting the program to your needs, no more improving the program. We're back to the days of having to wait until the company decides to issue an update, and having to pay for it to boot.

This is what TiVo does at the moment, but if GPLv3 doesn't allow this, they're screwed.

SoundMachine
September 6th, 2006, 04:30 PM
Two of the software freedoms that the GPL is supposed to protect are:
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1)
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)

If DRM is allowed in GPL'd programs then a person can take the Linux kernel (or any other GPL'd app), put it in their device to sell, and DRM it so that only their version of the code runs on the device. No more adapting the program to your needs, no more improving the program. We're back to the days of having to wait until the company decides to issue an update, and having to pay for it to boot.

But in that case I could still change the kernel code and use it on that same machine that it's embedded in.

If you (not you personally SoundMachine, to everyone) don't care about these two freedoms I have to ask, what are you using and supporting Free software for? These are the software freedoms that make Free software what it is. This is what the GPL is for. These extensions in GPL3 aren't just the FSF becoming more extreme and going too far. These extenstions would have been in the original GPL 20 years ago if the FSF had been able to see DRM and web applications coming. Both of these things can violate the freedoms that the GPL tries to ensure. If a person has a problem with these extensions, then I'd say they have a problem with the spirit of the GPL in general and should be using and releasing software under a BSD style liscence instead (not that there's anything wrong with that).


I think you misunderstood something here, read the GPLv2.

The code has to be open, even if you build a DRM scheme based on that code you cannot close the source code, no freedom has been restricted.

SoundMachine
September 6th, 2006, 04:36 PM
This is what TiVo does at the moment, but if GPLv3 doesn't allow this, they're screwed.

Well, the kernel source is open either way and TiVo could work the same way with GPLv3.

The DRM in TiVo does NOT restrict the code, it restricts what the box can be used for (the DRM scheme concerns itself with the media played on the box, not the code in the box) and GPLv3 would not open anything up either, slap on a userland drm app and you're done.

In both cases, all GPL'd code must be open, in neither case would the box run without their DRM addons.

prizrak
September 6th, 2006, 05:55 PM
Well, the kernel source is open either way and TiVo could work the same way with GPLv3.

The DRM in TiVo does NOT restrict the code, it restricts what the box can be used for (the DRM scheme concerns itself with the media played on the box, not the code in the box) and GPLv3 would not open anything up either, slap on a userland drm app and you're done.

In both cases, all GPL'd code must be open, in neither case would the box run without their DRM addons.

I might be misunderstanding you but I think you misunderstood TiVo's DRM. It basically only allows the OS that TiVo put on it to run on the box. Even though the kernel is open there is a hardware chip that will run a hash check against the OS and if it doesn't pass it, will refuse to execute it. v3 is supposed to protect against that by basically forcing you to open the code that is doing the checking. (At least that's how I understood was RMS was trying to say in his talk)

Personally I don't think that what TiVo did is against the spirit of DRM as no one is stopping you from modifying the FOSS part and running it as you like. Embedded OS's are a beast all their own anyway, even if it is based on the FOSS kernel such as Linux. The freedom to modify the kernel still doesn't give much as the rest of the OS is hidden.


If you (not you personally SoundMachine, to everyone) don't care about these two freedoms I have to ask, what are you using and supporting Free software for?
We use what works, simple as that. A huge number of people doesn't care about those issues and right now is not the time to introduce something like that. I agree with what was posted by Llord Illidan, right now we need to convince people to switch to Linux and convince them that the cost of switching is worth it. Introduce a [potential] issue like the v3 and you will see people going to other alternatives most likely Windows. If Linux was a serious force on the market it would be different as then the cost of switching over from Linux might be too great and companies/people would be forced to adapt.

This is actually the worst possible time for RMS to do what his doing, with Vista having stellar sys rq's and Win98 and OS/2 support scheduled to end soon there is a certain niche that is opening up for Linux in both home and organizational user market.

DoctorMO
September 6th, 2006, 06:02 PM
Well I've talked with both Torvalds and RMS, I've come up with a happy compromise whcih torvalds would agree to. but RMS is far more stuborn.

I'll have to have a word when I go to Boston later this year.

terminatingzero
September 6th, 2006, 06:18 PM
you guys are all Ubuntu users you should be angry, in case you may not have noticed Ubuntu is owned by a company just as Red Hat and Suse so if this affects Red Hat its going to affect Ubuntu one way or another. Even if Red Hat goes off and create they're own version and keep everything v2 its going to hurt Ubuntu, Think about that for awhile

Perhaps I am missing something but I cannot see GPL 3 hurting any of our Linux Distributions(Companies included) unless they were jump on the whole DRM bandwagon which I really doubt they would do considering how detrimental it would be to all of the GNU/Linux community.

kanem
September 6th, 2006, 06:23 PM
I think you misunderstood something here, read the GPLv2.

The code has to be open, even if you build a DRM scheme based on that code you cannot close the source code, no freedom has been restricted.
Sure, the code has to be open, I never implied it wouldn't be. But what good is seeing the code if any modifications I make render it useless for the hardware? I'm no longer able to improve or adapt the program to my needs, a clear restriction of my freedoms.

We use what works, simple as that. A huge number of people doesn't care about those issues..Then again I have to ask, why are you even using Free software? Windows works, Macintosh works, BSD works...

..right now we need to convince people to switch to Linux and convince them that the cost of switching is worth it.Why? Why do we need to convince people? Did these people and companies, most of whom don't even like the GPL as it is, get GNU/Linux where it is today? No. Is Linux going to stop improving if these possible future users don't switch? No. So why should I risk my software freedoms just to have more people using Linux? Enough people are switching anyway.

@DoctorMO: if you don't mind explaining, what was your compromise?

prizrak
September 6th, 2006, 06:46 PM
Then again I have to ask, why are you even using Free software? Windows works, Macintosh works, BSD works...
Quote:
BSD is also free software not GPL'ed but free no less. Aparently Linux (in this case Ubuntu) works for me better than the alternatives so I use it.


Why? Why do we need to convince people? Did these people and companies, most of whom don't even like the GPL as it is, get GNU/Linux where it is today? No. Is Linux going to stop improving if these possible future users don't switch? No. So why should I risk my software freedoms just to have more people using Linux? Enough people are switching anyway.
Because while the hackers have done alot for Linux and made it a great OS w/o 3rd party support it will never get to the point where it can be run painlessly. Just think about Intel, nVidia, ATI and Lenovo (putting it here because of the T60p) deciding that Linux isn't worth the effort and completely stopping any kind of collaboration (in Intel's case they would stop releasing FOSS drivers). How usable would most computers be w/o that support? Forget XGL or AIGLX, forget any kind of 3D acceleration, forget wireless forget all that working. The community does a great job of reverse engineering but it's not perfect and in many case not usable. For instance I got a mobile GeForce and the nv driver does not work well with it even in 2D. Look around the forums and see how much trouble people have with things like Flash, something that is needed on a huge number of websites. Look around for hardware issues for things that haven't been reverse engineered yet or don't have open specs or manufacturer drivers. Hell look at printing issues, it took me about an hour and a half to install an actual Linux driver from Lexmark themselves.

Also don't forget that RedHat, Novell, Mandriva, Canonical (Ubuntu) and even Linspire do loads to improve the OS. If those companies didn't pay people to work on Linux full time the rate of improvement would be nowhere near what it is today. I'm not saying volunteers would stop working on Linux but there is a difference between having to juggle a full time job/studies, family, personal time and still working on Linux and only having to jugle a full time job and family/personal time (as most of us do anyway).

Additionally mass adoption == increased number of developers. Linux companies that are making money can hire more developers, kids going to college see Linux as a way to make a living will be more inclined to learn to develop for it, just plain programmers who used to develop for Windows because that's what the company uses will be learning how to develop for Linux.

On your favorite software freedom part, how about the fact that if Linux suceeds (i.e. takes 10% or more of the desktop market) then it will show that the FOSS development paradigm works and that it may be beneficial for ISV's to go that route instead of keeping things proprietary.

So yes for now we need to make some sacrifices and have people (and most importantly organizations switch) create a vendor lock-in sort of thing where it will be easier for them to just accept the v3 limitations than switch away.

Hell take a lesson from Microsoft, they might be evil and monopolistic but they are dominant and you could learn something. Look at their handling of piracy, up until XP there was no mechanism of protection whatsoever, it was simple enough to get the software keys for any version of Windows and happily get all the updates you would ever need. Now we got activiation, WGA, SP1 not installing on systems that do not pass WGA validation. Could it have been done before? You bet your ****, the reason it wasn't was userbase. When it was much easier for organizations and people to just pay for a Windows license than switch to a different platform MS introduced all those measures of protection. Vista will have even more and people are taking it. If you do the same with DRM on Linux when it becomes widely used do you really think that people would say "nah f that, I'm going to Windows they are not letting me watch DRM'ed porn" of course not it would be going into an even more restrictive environment.

SoundMachine
September 6th, 2006, 06:46 PM
Prizak, I think i have to read the GPLv3 more carefully before responding to your post.


Sure, the code has to be open, I never implied it wouldn't be. But what good is seeing the code if any modifications I make render it useless for the hardware? I'm no longer able to improve or adapt the program to my needs, a clear restriction of my freedoms.

The code applies only to itself, there is no one who grants you that modifications you make will be accepted by hardware.



Then again I have to ask, why are you even using Free software? Windows works, Macintosh works, BSD works...

You don't consider BSD to be FLOSS? I most certainly do, with a less restrictive licence than any version of the GPL to boot.

And while i personally prefer open source I will use whatever works in the cases where I don't have other options which brings us to:


Why? Why do we need to convince people? Did these people and companies, most of whom don't even like the GPL as it is, get GNU/Linux where it is today?

The problem is that without more widespread use increased support so that I and those like me can use it where we today have no other options than to run proprietary software isn't likely.



No. Is Linux going to stop improving if these possible future users don't switch? No. So why should I risk my software freedoms just to have more people using Linux? Enough people are switching anyway.

That is your opinion but many others do not agree. Ubuntu #1 bug isn't intended as a joke.


I have a giant problem with "freedoms" that are so restrictive that they force people to shun them.

kanem
September 6th, 2006, 07:38 PM
I didn't mean to imply that BSD isn't free. Just that someone who finds the GPL too restrictive should maybe want to use BSD as an alternative. Bad wording on my part.

It's great that companies like Red Hat and Canonical are improving Linux, and I have no problem with companies getting involved. And they, and companies like them, are doing so without complaining about the GPL or trying to keep their improvements closed. I never implied that I have anything against companies like this developing for Linux. But companies that have a problem with the GPL and are contstantly trying to get around it through loopholes, I'd rather not have around. They are not helping.

And as for mass adoption, well I guess I'm just already happy with the steady progress Linux is continuing to make. It's already as painless for me as any other OS. Sure, I'd like to see new users, but I don't need them. And there are plenty who feel like me. I'm also confident that Linux use will reach >10% anyway, without giving in to companies' wishes at the expense of the GPL.

So I guess it's just a difference of opinion at this point.

But what I really don't like about this debate is that people are willing to risk a real and immediate threat to Free software (TiVo like DRM) in order to avoid a possibly maybe threat (less companies switching to Linux).

prizrak
September 6th, 2006, 07:53 PM
And as for mass adoption, well I guess I'm just already happy with the steady progress Linux is continuing to make. It's already as painless for me as any other OS. Sure, I'd like to see new users, but I don't need them. And there are plenty who feel like me. I'm also confident that Linux use will reach >10% anyway, without giving in to companies' wishes at the expense of the GPL.

I don't mean that it is a problem if Linux stays at the current adoption numbers. What I was implying was people leaving Linux. Also DRM support is a necessity in anything that is meant to be more than an organizational OS.


But what I really don't like about this debate is that people are willing to risk a real and immediate threat to Free software (TiVo like DRM) in order to avoid a possibly maybe threat (less companies switching to Linux).
Perhaps it is not that significant of a threat to alot of us. TiVo-like DRM only concerns embedded devices, that are rarely modified anyway.

P.S. I think this should be moved to the backyard, might get heated.

SoundMachine
September 6th, 2006, 07:57 PM
I didn't mean to imply that BSD isn't free. Just that someone who finds the GPL too restrictive should maybe want to use BSD as an alternative. Bad wording on my part.

No worries and yes, you are quite right. :)


It's great that companies like Red Hat and Canonical are improving Linux, and I have no problem with companies getting involved. And they, and companies like them, are doing so without complaining about the GPL or trying to keep their improvements closed. I never implied that I have anything against companies like this developing for Linux. But companies that have a problem with the GPL and are contstantly trying to get around it through loopholes, I'd rather not have around. They are not helping.

Ahhhh, a completely free system, devoid of any binary blobs, i have a couple right here. :)

However, when it comes to DRM if it, like CSS and other such ridiculessness, becomes mainstream then to gain userbase Linux will have to support it.


And as for mass adoption, well I guess I'm just already happy with the steady progress Linux is continuing to make. It's already as painless for me as any other OS. Sure, I'd like to see new users, but I don't need them. And there are plenty who feel like me. I'm also confident that Linux use will reach >10% anyway, without giving in to companies' wishes at the expense of the GPL.

I'm not and from my POV it seems that Linux is the only system with a fair chance to change it for me. There's too much hardware and software i can't use entirely to be happy with it right now, personally I don't have any problems running Linux only but where i work it's a problem, for my dad it's a problem, for many others it's a problem.


So I guess it's just a difference of opinion at this point.

But what I really don't like about this debate is that people are willing to risk a real and immediate threat to Free software (TiVo like DRM) in order to avoid a possibly maybe threat (less companies switching to Linux).

I don't believe that DRM is a threat to GPL'd software. Even less of a threat that the more open BSD licence has been to BSD. I believe the userbase will either adopt it or shun it, for media it's restrictive, definently, for FLOSS, i don't believe it is.

I don't really buy RMS's ideas either but that's probably obvious. ;)

terminatingzero
September 6th, 2006, 09:26 PM
kanem you are right there are plenty that feel the same as you; count me in.

I think what it comes down to is; do you choose corruption of the original philosophy that helped you get here or do you choose to preserve the original philosophy against new threats that are occuring.

It also leaves the Companies in a difficult position do you choose to stand up for the community that started this movement or do you choose to widen your user base and increase profits while corrupting the original GNU Philosophy and harming the linux community.

It just comes down to choice, and for whatever choice is made depending on the way you look at the choice there are ups and downs.

ubuntuman001
September 6th, 2006, 09:28 PM
Linus.
I don't believe Linux has advanced enough that we can impose this much on other companies. If Linus became really strong, like say, 10% marketshare, then, yes.

Extremism is not going to help. For now, open source is going to sit with DRM.10% ? wouldn't it be more like 5% ? considering this (http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/31/linux-opensource-vista_cz_dl_0831sled.html?boxes=custom) article from forbes:
Linux today has less than 2% market share on the desktop. and
Windows, which represents 95% of all PCs meaning apple, only has like a little more than 3% of the desktop PC market. so, if so many companies regard apple with such high regard that they'll put out drivers for macs, why wouldn't they (also hold a high regard) for linux if it hypothetically had more PC market share (5% vs 3%) than macs?

audioboxer217
September 6th, 2006, 10:23 PM
I agree, mostly, with Linus. RMS has a few good ideals but his GPL v3 implements them way too strongly. I also feel that TPM and DRM are good ideas taken horribly in the wrong direction.

10% ? wouldn't it be more like 5% ? considering this (http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/31/linux-opensource-vista_cz_dl_0831sled.html?boxes=custom) article from forbes:
Linux will need to get closer to 10% to get support from 3rd-party companies because, in general, open-source drivers are preferred by Linux users and companies don't like to make this (hence the reason for this discussion) Apple gets help with a mere 3% because they are fine with closed-source drivers. In order to get major companies to release open-source drivers we will need a much bigger userbase.

DoctorMO
September 6th, 2006, 11:26 PM
The compromise I suggested was that where GPL3 was used in products for sale which did not allow modifications of the code to be reimplimented (either through technical artifact such as use of ROM or through political limitation such as software signing (aka tivo)) then the hardware must be clearly marked that you can not modify the software in the hardware it's self, with a defective by design logo.

The problem with RMS is that you can't go around telling people what they can and can't do with their hardware designs. you can validly protect the good name of Open source, Free Software, FLOSS and Linux by making sure where this kind of freedom violation does occur that consumers are informed that the hardware is broken and that updates from the community can't be installed into the hardware.

It's a balance and while I don't like what TiVo have done, it's also wrong for a software lience to dictate hardware requirements. But we can discourage such behavior by having such advitising/labeling requirements.

This requirement Torvalds would accept but RMS gave a bit of a cold shoulder (all though at least he replied and then incorporated a few of the arguments into some recent statements, but not quite what I was going for)

M7S
September 6th, 2006, 11:28 PM
Stallman.

At least the patenting issue - as I unerstand it - needs to be dealt with now. If I've understood GPLv3 correctly one of its goal is to try stopping companies from patenting their idéas, use the idéas in an opensource program and then sue people if they change the code in a way the company don't like. Small companies shouldn't have to use their resources on checking up wheter they can use opensource code in their opensource project or not because of patents. We can't offer the small companies in favor for the convinience of the bigger ones. This is perhaps not a big problem today, but we can't sit around waiting for it to become one. The problems exist and I don't think we should try hide them instead of dealing with them just because of "bad timing".

Perhaps the drm stuff could wait? I dont know. But I do understand that FSF wants to deal with all problems at once instead of doing a GPLv3 now and a GPLv4 in just a couple of years.

I'm sure that Stallman & co won't make a licence that would force distros to use either only GPLv2 or GPLv3 programs, as that biased articel indicates. Stallman might be a bit extreme but I strongly doubt he would make a licence that would clearly risk to kill Linux because of his principals. He is not stupid.

M7S
September 7th, 2006, 12:10 AM
@DoctorMO
The update from GPLv2 to GPLv3 isn't about changing how the freedoms is precerved, it's about upgrading the licence against new threats. Those who has licenced their programs with "GPLv2 or later" has (hopefully) done so because they don't wan't people who doesn't respect the freedoms to use their code. GPLv3 must in my opion respect that and not change the rules othervice it wouldn't be in the spirit of GPLv2.

What I'm saying is that if this drm stuff is a problem that should be dealt with in GPLv3 then it has to be dealt with those same metods that GPLv2 uses. Othervice you screw all those people who licenced their programs with "GPL2 or later". If it isn't a problem leave it alone. Just to "protect the good name of Open source, Free Software, FLOSS and Linux" was never the goal of GPLv2 and can't therefore be the goal of GPLv3.

DoctorMO
September 7th, 2006, 05:15 AM
M7S then you've lost, end game.

terminatingzero
September 7th, 2006, 05:26 AM
Well I don't know. You guys read this and tell me whether you think the DRM issue needs to be taken care of. Personally just based on the words "potentially endangering lives" I don't think it has any place in on or near GNU/Linux, but that's my opinion.

Here is the link to the blog.
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=984

M7S
September 7th, 2006, 08:01 AM
M7S then you've lost, end game.
How so? Either the drm stuff will be in GPLv3 or it wont. I prefer if it is, but if it isn't that wouldn't be the end of the world. If your compromise would make it into the GPLv3 I would feel like FSF lost, though. That would be to acknowledge the problem but not have the guts to deal with it properly.

prizrak
September 7th, 2006, 02:11 PM
Well I don't know. You guys read this and tell me whether you think the DRM issue needs to be taken care of. Personally just based on the words "potentially endangering lives" I don't think it has any place in on or near GNU/Linux, but that's my opinion.

Here is the link to the blog.
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=984

No one stops proprietary DRM for Linux so it makes no difference really. It just won't be allowed into GPL'ed programs (or rather allowed but in a way that makes it useless) but there is plenty of closed source running on Linux. Hell my video drivers are closed source.

kripkenstein
September 7th, 2006, 02:22 PM
It seems some people agree with Linus, other with Stallman. But really, does it matter? The Linux kernel can stay at GPL2 from now til eternity, while other stuff (the GNOME apps, for example) move to GPL3.

A typical Linux distribution already ships with a wide variety of licenses - GPL1, GPL2, BSD, MIT, Apache, MPL. GPL3 will just be another option for developers to use. Apparently the kernel will stay at GPL2. That is their right. For those writing apps and more concerned with DRM and patent issues, the GPL3 is an option to consider.

I guess what I'm saying is that I am not sure why there is so much heated debate over this issue.

prizrak
September 7th, 2006, 02:33 PM
It seems some people agree with Linus, other with Stallman. But really, does it matter? The Linux kernel can stay at GPL2 from now til eternity, while other stuff (the GNOME apps, for example) move to GPL3.

A typical Linux distribution already ships with a wide variety of licenses - GPL1, GPL2, BSD, MIT, Apache, MPL. GPL3 will just be another option for developers to use. Apparently the kernel will stay at GPL2. That is their right. For those writing apps and more concerned with DRM and patent issues, the GPL3 is an option to consider.

I guess what I'm saying is that I am not sure why there is so much heated debate over this issue.

The thing is that Torvalds does not own all of the code that goes into the kernel. His keeping his part v2 but there are alot of people writing kernel code and some of it might be v3 and there is certain conflict between the two licenses.

kripkenstein
September 7th, 2006, 05:20 PM
The thing is that Torvalds does not own all of the code that goes into the kernel. His keeping his part v2 but there are alot of people writing kernel code and some of it might be v3 and there is certain conflict between the two licenses.

Well, since most of the kernel will remain at v2, the other modules will need to remain v2 or "v2 or above". You are right in that they will not be able to be v3 only, unless all of the kernel does so.

The problem of some developer writing v3 code and not being able to integrate it with the rest of the mostly-v2 kernel will not occur, I believe. All kernel developers will surely know that only v2 or "v2 or above" code is linkable.

So, the kernel will remain at v2, which is what Linus wants. Certainly this is a legitimate position for him and his project to take. Again, I don't see the big problem here, perhaps I am missing something?

EdThaSlayer
September 7th, 2006, 05:53 PM
I agree with Linus Torvalds because limiting the acces to Linux components to those biggest companies...also limits potential linux users, since those big companies could publicize linux far better...

prizrak
September 7th, 2006, 06:54 PM
Well, since most of the kernel will remain at v2, the other modules will need to remain v2 or "v2 or above". You are right in that they will not be able to be v3 only, unless all of the kernel does so.

The problem of some developer writing v3 code and not being able to integrate it with the rest of the mostly-v2 kernel will not occur, I believe. All kernel developers will surely know that only v2 or "v2 or above" code is linkable.

So, the kernel will remain at v2, which is what Linus wants. Certainly this is a legitimate position for him and his project to take. Again, I don't see the big problem here, perhaps I am missing something?

According to RMS anything that is licensed as v2 or above will become v3 as soon as v3 is released. The problem is that some people don't want v3 (such as Linus) and others do so that it is possible that the entire kernel will be forked and we will have the division between the two. Also possible that alot of kernel devs will go off to work on HURD if they don't agree with Linus and then it will be starting from square one. Even if according to you there isn't a problem you can see that there is a clear division in the community, which is definetly hurting potential adoption as no one wants to deploy an OS with an uncertain future.

The general problem is forking, it is very possible that alot of projects will fork into v2 and v3 licensed ones and that means that there will be less developers on each of the forks.

Another problem, at least for me, is that the so-called Free Software is taking away freedom with v3. Using or not using DRM is also part of the freedom and RMS is taking that choice away. He also outright rejects DRM and does not acknowledge that it is a tool and therefore cannot be good or bad on its own. That's something that irks me, sure Sony DRM is bad but allowing only signed applications to run on a business desktop is good because it is a great protection against people putting random stuff on their computers (had to clean our secretaries desktop everytime I used it back when I was working for my college) and malware is less likely to find an attack venue.

SoundMachine
September 7th, 2006, 07:38 PM
According to RMS anything that is licensed as v2 or above will become v3 as soon as v3 is released. The problem is that some people don't want v3 (such as Linus) and others do so that it is possible that the entire kernel will be forked and we will have the division between the two. Also possible that alot of kernel devs will go off to work on HURD if they don't agree with Linus and then it will be starting from square one. Even if according to you there isn't a problem you can see that there is a clear division in the community, which is definetly hurting potential adoption as no one wants to deploy an OS with an uncertain future.

The general problem is forking, it is very possible that alot of projects will fork into v2 and v3 licensed ones and that means that there will be less developers on each of the forks.

Another problem, at least for me, is that the so-called Free Software is taking away freedom with v3. Using or not using DRM is also part of the freedom and RMS is taking that choice away. He also outright rejects DRM and does not acknowledge that it is a tool and therefore cannot be good or bad on its own. That's something that irks me, sure Sony DRM is bad but allowing only signed applications to run on a business desktop is good because it is a great protection against people putting random stuff on their computers (had to clean our secretaries desktop everytime I used it back when I was working for my college) and malware is less likely to find an attack venue.

Well, RMS has always been like that, it's not about freedom for users OR developers, it's about his ideals and that is ALL he cares about.

The "signed software only" thingy is the main reason my company is moving to Vista rather than looking for other solutions. Naturally, being in charge of all these machines, i would love it if the policy sets the rules and the user sets the policy (in this case, the user is me and only me, not the people operating the computer on a daily basis, they can set the policy on their home computers but not there) in a Linux distro.

Fact is, without these improvements to Linux (which also may open another door if i, the user, wants to let it) Vista will be more secure than any Linux distro (or even OpenBSD) is to date.

kripkenstein
September 7th, 2006, 08:18 PM
According to RMS anything that is licensed as v2 or above will become v3 as soon as v3 is released.

Did RMS say that? If so, he's dead wrong. A license of "GPL v2 or above" means that a person creating a derivative work has the option of licensing that work under the v2, v3, etc. The original work stays at "v2 or above". If you can find where RMS said that, please tell me.


The problem is that some people don't want v3 (such as Linus) and others do so that it is possible that the entire kernel will be forked and we will have the division between the two. Also possible that alot of kernel devs will go off to work on HURD if they don't agree with Linus and then it will be starting from square one. Even if according to you there isn't a problem you can see that there is a clear division in the community, which is definetly hurting potential adoption as no one wants to deploy an OS with an uncertain future.

The general problem is forking, it is very possible that alot of projects will fork into v2 and v3 licensed ones and that means that there will be less developers on each of the forks.


Now, on this I partially agree with you. It is possible that lack of agreement would cause a fork of some projects (I doubt that the Linux kernel would be one of them, but it is possible, I admit). Yet, I am not that certain that this would be a bad thing. We already have more than one open-source kernel: we have Linux (GPL v2), BSD (BSD), and OpenSolaris (CDDL). You can, for example, run GNOME on any of these three. So more options isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The main goal in the case of a kernel fork would be to ensure that they will run the same software - which, as I say, is already not far from reality with the kernels we have. So, I am not that worried about this.

croak77
September 7th, 2006, 09:17 PM
Another problem, at least for me, is that the so-called Free Software is taking away freedom with v3. Using or not using DRM is also part of the freedom and RMS is taking that choice away.

I really don't see a clause that prevents people/companies from using GPLv3 code to make DRM schemes as taking away choice. If companies want DRM, they can code it themselves. I don't think GPL code should be used to restrict user freedoms. It seems kind of antithetical to what the GPL is all about. If a coder doesn't care what his/her code is used for then they should chose a BSD license.

prizrak
September 7th, 2006, 09:48 PM
Did RMS say that? If so, he's dead wrong. A license of "GPL v2 or above" means that a person creating a derivative work has the option of licensing that work under the v2, v3, etc. The original work stays at "v2 or above". If you can find where RMS said that, please tell me.

I couldn't point you to a link it was in a transcript of one of his talks but it was a while ago. The link was on the forum here so maybe it can be found, not too sure. It is quite possible that he is wrong, after all he is not a lawyer.


Now, on this I partially agree with you. It is possible that lack of agreement would cause a fork of some projects (I doubt that the Linux kernel would be one of them, but it is possible, I admit). Yet, I am not that certain that this would be a bad thing. We already have more than one open-source kernel: we have Linux (GPL v2), BSD (BSD), and OpenSolaris (CDDL). You can, for example, run GNOME on any of these three. So more options isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The main goal in the case of a kernel fork would be to ensure that they will run the same software - which, as I say, is already not far from reality with the kernels we have. So, I am not that worried about this.
Yes but how many people are using/developing the other ones as compared to Linux? Forking in FOSS is not necessarily bad and is part of the process but obviously the more developers collaborate on one project the faster that project will move and improve. This of course is extremely debatable and is very much an opinion issue. I do agree that some kind of a standard layer that allows the software to be run regardless of the kernel is necessary.


I really don't see a clause that prevents people/companies from using GPLv3 code to make DRM schemes as taking away choice. If companies want DRM, they can code it themselves. I don't think GPL code should be used to restrict user freedoms. It seems kind of antithetical to what the GPL is all about. If a coder doesn't care what his/her code is used for then they should chose a BSD license.

It's not really about the code for DRM it's about embedded devices most of all. TiVo doesn't have any DRM code in it (not the open part in any case) it simply runs a hash check for the OS and will only execute it if the hash it has in it's ROM is the same as the value returned by the OS check. This prevents people from running their own hacked versions of the OS on the TiVo box. I see that as a legitimate use as the company is making money mostly of the subscription to DVR services their hardware is actually free at this point (albeit after a rebate) and doesn't want to give people cheap and low powered computers.

Mind you that the source is not closed, you can modify the TiVo kernel all you want and do whatever you want with it. It may not run on a TiVo after you do so but that's your problem. The interesting parts of the TiVo were always proprietary and no one was ever going to open them up. There are also certain concerns when it comes to online content (it has a feature similar to Online Spotlight in MCE) that has to be DRM'ed. Now if the DRM clause is introduced into the GPL TiVo will not be able to block out people from running w/e they want on the hardware. If that happens TiVo will just go with either a BSD kernel, a fully closed source kernel (not too difficult to write one given the limited functionality that TiVo requires and full control over the hardware) or proprietary DRM blob that will do the same exact thing. Basically the DRM clause does not solve the problem and is likely to create another one.

Additionally if you ever want to use Linux on a home desktop (or even a business one at this point) there needs to be DRM support built into the kernel. As SoundMachine has pointed out, "signed software" approach to security is a huge concern for companies and is also one of the most secure ways of running an OS.

To make matters worse that clause only takes away a freedom to screw with embedded devices if the manufacturer doesn't want you to. There isn't much benefit in that anyway and "improvements" that hackers can code up would need to be fed back to the company before they officially make it into the devices so the benefit would be to a very small group.

Basically I am of the opinion that v3 is basically not worth the aggravation. Bogus software patent suits protection I can agree with, however that also doesn't seem like much of an issue as the code is open and even if someone takes a company to court over it, it would be impossible to get people to stop using it not to mention it would be modified so extensively by the community by the time the process is over the original suit is basically useless.

SoundMachine
September 7th, 2006, 10:54 PM
I really don't see a clause that prevents people/companies from using GPLv3 code to make DRM schemes as taking away choice. If companies want DRM, they can code it themselves. I don't think GPL code should be used to restrict user freedoms. It seems kind of antithetical to what the GPL is all about. If a coder doesn't care what his/her code is used for then they should chose a BSD license.

Yet they cannot link it against the kernel if the kernel were GPLv3 or against other system libraries now can they?

That effectively ruins Linux as a mainstream OS where media of the USERS choice can be played.

It's about restrictions, it's about restricting the use of DRM media on Linux systems and it's all RMS ideology. The GPL, in its current form is to provide freedom in a way that benefits the user, the v3 is an unwelcome restriction since it restricts the users choices, choices the user can make on his or her own with earlier versions.

I agree though, the BSD license is better for everyone.

prizrak
September 7th, 2006, 11:02 PM
I agree though, the BSD license is better for everyone.
While I like the BSD license I think that it has certain issues. The #1 being Mac OS X, Apple doesn't have to release all the enhancements they made so you got a great OS that is built on top of work of a huge number of FOSS. The *BSD OS's themselves are a pain to use (I've tried numerous times).

SoundMachine
September 7th, 2006, 11:16 PM
While I like the BSD license I think that it has certain issues. The #1 being Mac OS X, Apple doesn't have to release all the enhancements they made so you got a great OS that is built on top of work of a huge number of FOSS. The *BSD OS's themselves are a pain to use (I've tried numerous times).

#1 issue, well, that is the point, no restrictions.

If you have a problem with any *BSD OS, you are free to ask me about it, i can't vouch for every problem but i do know that when it comes to HW support the *BSD's are ahead of Linux, when it comes to stability, they are way ahead of Linux and when it comes to performance, well, they are faster. That goes for Dragonfly, Open and FreeBSD, the other abominations i haven't tried and probably never will.

I've been running Open and FreeBSD for so long that i have probably forgotten what the difficulties may be so enlighten me. ;)

prizrak
September 8th, 2006, 12:06 AM
#1 issue, well, that is the point, no restrictions.

If you have a problem with any *BSD OS, you are free to ask me about it, i can't vouch for every problem but i do know that when it comes to HW support the *BSD's are ahead of Linux, when it comes to stability, they are way ahead of Linux and when it comes to performance, well, they are faster. That goes for Dragonfly, Open and FreeBSD, the other abominations i haven't tried and probably never will.

I've been running Open and FreeBSD for so long that i have probably forgotten what the difficulties may be so enlighten me. ;)

I tried both Open and Free and was very lost in Open (most likely due to the security policies). Thanks for the offer I might pick your brain next time I decide to nuke one of my comps :) Meanwhile, how is wireless and ACPI on BSD?

SoundMachine
September 8th, 2006, 12:18 AM
I tried both Open and Free and was very lost in Open (most likely due to the security policies). Thanks for the offer I might pick your brain next time I decide to nuke one of my comps :) Meanwhile, how is wireless and ACPI on BSD?

Wireless and ACPI? Where Linux will be mid-summer 07.

The drivers that you are still waiting on for the next kernel that still don't include the FW bit has been in Open and Free for a while now.

Open has some real nice pols but it's vastly different, you will have to learn them to know them, fortunantly the resources are even better than for Ubuntu, the manual is online and it's probably the best manual you'll find for any OS, even FreeBSD (which would be a close second).

Now that i'm done praising BSD i'd like to apologize for being a bit rude in my earlier response.

And please do ask if you should decide to try again and run into problems, i find that most people learn very fast and once you learn how the system works, it's pretty much the same for everything within that system.

One strange thing that i've found about FreeBSD, it runs Linux software faster than any native linux system and that is strange.

prizrak
September 8th, 2006, 12:37 AM
Back on topic though. I think that the GPLv2 is a great license and is great for FOSS. BSD is good too but it doesn't force the improvements to be rereleased to the community where of course things like OS X come from. The restrictions imposed by v2 makes the software written using that license usable by anyone on anything the v3 actually takes away that ability as it forces anyone who wants to link to anything GPL open up the DRM keys making it basically pointless.

IMO, RMS is screwing up a great thing.

SoundMachine
September 8th, 2006, 01:00 AM
Back on topic though. I think that the GPLv2 is a great license and is great for FOSS. BSD is good too but it doesn't force the improvements to be rereleased to the community where of course things like OS X come from. The restrictions imposed by v2 makes the software written using that license usable by anyone on anything the v3 actually takes away that ability as it forces anyone who wants to link to anything GPL open up the DRM keys making it basically pointless.

IMO, RMS is screwing up a great thing.

Well, as you mentioned, BSD won't force it but that is also the reason why BSD has had much better wireless support for a long time.

It's a give and take and many things that are given into proprietary can be taken back into FLOSS.

I think that "free but restricted" is an oxymoron. Ideologies and politics ALWAYS restrict freedom and that is part of why i dislike RMS so much.

prizrak
September 8th, 2006, 01:48 AM
I think that "free but restricted" is an oxymoron. Ideologies and politics ALWAYS restrict freedom and that is part of why i dislike RMS so much.
+1 :)

SoundMachine
September 8th, 2006, 01:53 AM
+1 :)


Then we are about even now my friend. :)

gnomeuser
September 8th, 2006, 02:15 AM
The GPL comes with the promise that the spirit of the license will never change, it will be updated to adapt to new technology. Which is all GPLv3 really is doing. It clarifies the intend of the GPLv2 and as something unheard of in the licensing realm, it goes out of it's way to be even more compatible with existing licenses.

Linus tends to be pragmatic and forget the roots of the system, he is a technologist and has very little insight into the inner workings of the law, that is where Stallman and Moglen come into the picture. Stallman doesn't tell Linus how to write his code so it's my general opinion that Linus shouldn't tell Stallman how to write his licenses, at least he shouldn't use his public platform as a way of going around the GPLv3 review commitee, if he has a valid concern he should submit it to the commitee and it will be addressed.

Stallman wheither you personally like him or not is the father of the movement and I think it's important that we never forget our roots. If we sell out the ideals for temporary advancements or apeasement we deserve neither.

SoundMachine
September 8th, 2006, 02:34 AM
The GPL comes with the promise that the spirit of the license will never change, it will be updated to adapt to new technology. Which is all GPLv3 really is doing. It clarifies the intend of the GPLv2 and as something unheard of in the licensing realm, it goes out of it's way to be even more compatible with existing licenses.

Linus tends to be pragmatic and forget the roots of the system, he is a technologist and has very little insight into the inner workings of the law, that is where Stallman and Moglen come into the picture. Stallman doesn't tell Linus how to write his code so it's my general opinion that Linus shouldn't tell Stallman how to write his licenses, at least he shouldn't use his public platform as a way of going around the GPLv3 review commitee, if he has a valid concern he should submit it to the commitee and it will be addressed.

Like it or not, Stallman wants to keep his ideologies alive but users and developers wants something that works, that is why Stallman is having these problems right now, he's not in charge, what he doesn't get is that he never really was. The kernel is Linus's work, if Stallman wants to separate, 95% of the devs would go with Linus and Stallman knows that. Then Stallman can stand there with his own new developed apps and a fork of the Linux kernel that will be valid competition for about 3 months. Or he could go back to the joke, oh, sorry i mean the hurd. Linus is a realist, he accepts what comes and embraces new things that will benefit more developers and users while Stallman goes all white and screams "AGAINST MY IDEOLOGY AND I DECIDE"


Stallman wheither you personally like him or not is the father of the movement and I think it's important that we never forget our roots. If we sell out the ideals for temporary advancements or apeasement we deserve neither.

"the movement" baloney, BSD is not part of it and it's still FLOSS, the only thing Stallman is the father of is his own ideas and politics which gives me flashbacks from USSR, one commander who decides what is good for the people and everybody work for his goal.

Well, how about... NO!

terminatingzero
September 8th, 2006, 05:27 AM
Seriously, brother just do me a favor and read the info on the thread in the backyard about DRM and Trusted computing If you think some of the links are BS that's ok but I'm sure you'll find that there is some excellent info in there just take a read. You have to remember stay neutral we're getting a little heated here and when it comes right down to it we're all on the same side. That's why we're here. Right?:D

Virogenesis
September 8th, 2006, 05:50 AM
If stallman wants control, because thats what he wants then he should get hurd finished. Linus understands people better than stallman will ever will.
Stallman will do more harm than good with the GPL 3, many do not want gpl 3.
If a break did occur then Linus would get more backing.
Linux will never be gpl3 Linus has said that and gnome if that goes gpl 3 then KDE will benefit.

PS: yes linux does support trusted computing in the kernel but it has to be enabled.
If a distro has it enabled by default then don't use it its quite simple

prizrak
September 8th, 2006, 05:52 AM
Seriously, brother just do me a favor and read the info on the thread in the backyard about DRM and Trusted computing If you think some of the links are BS that's ok but I'm sure you'll find that there is some excellent info in there just take a read. You have to remember stay neutral we're getting a little heated here and when it comes right down to it we're all on the same side. That's why we're here. Right?:D

I read your thread (or one like it) and about DRM and TPM. I maintain my stance, DRM/TPM is a tool how that tool is used is up to the people that implement it. It is not a bad tool in itself there are legitimate uses for it there are also ways to implement them to user's benefit (or at least w/o interfering wit the user's rights). I have a thread in the backyard on something like that and something that I think could work.

Personally I want TPM support in Linux and a TPM chip in my laptop as long as *I* am the one in control of what I allow to run on MY machine. You would be very hard pressed to screw up my computer with such a setup on any OS.

I would also like to point out that GNU were the ones to embrace the Linux kernel not the other way around. Sure Linus used GCC to build Linux but it was not a necessity. If a break does occur how long do you think it would take to completely replace the GNU part of GNU/Linux with something else? Look at the flip side how long would GNU take to replace the Linux part in GNU/Linux? For an idea of the time it would take I suggest you look at when GNU announced a GNU OS and when they actually got one. Here is a hint: they got their OS when Linux was released under the GPL.

SoundMachine,
You are getting a bit heated here and I understand your frustration as I agree with you completely but remember nerve cells take very long to regenerate ;)

Luggy
September 8th, 2006, 06:36 AM
...As for the first clause, I disagree with stallman. If companies have patents out, why shouldn't they be allowed to bring infringement claims against programs that are stealing their technology?

Sorry if I'm saying something that has already been said. I just saw this post and jumped on it without reading anything else.


I had the fortune of hearing RMS talk about why software patents are wrong.
I'm not going to give his lecture justice but I'm sure it's somewhere up on the internet but essentially there are serveral reasons why software patents are wrong.

Patents protect ideas, they do not protect the creative works of authors, inventors or programmers, that's what copyrights do.

If you were the first person to put a patent on a toaster, no one else can create a toaster or make any other device that toasts bread and all methods possible for toasting bread. A patent on a toaster protects the idea of toasting bread.

Lets say you could patent software to convert Celsius to Kalvin. Anyone who wants to convert temperature now has to pay you a royalty to implement any function that converts temperature. You would be able to protect the idea of converting temperature and all methods or equations you could use to convert temperature. Because you would have the patent, any possible derivitives of that patent are also protected.

Now I come along and make some software to calaculate how much liquid is in a tank, and I use a calculation similar to what you used to Celsius to Kalvin. Even though I used the calculation for a differnt purpose I am infringing on your patent and you can sue me.

Patents may work for physical devices, but when treat code the same way you do a toaster the implementations spiral out into the nasty mess does more damage then good.


Software patents restrict your freedom to code. They put programmers in constant fear of tripping over a patent landmine and force them to pay royalties just so they can implement the most basic of ideas.

Linux and GNU is based on freedom. The freedom to hack, modify, share and re-distrobute software for anyone and everyone around the globe. Software patents prevent you from doing this. What good is it to be able to look at code if you cannot use it without paying royalties The clauses RMS is adding to version 3 of the GPL ensure that our Freedom is never lost.

kripkenstein
September 8th, 2006, 06:53 AM
(Context: DRM)


Yet they cannot link it against the kernel if the kernel were GPLv3 or against other system libraries now can they?


That is true, they can't link it against the kernel. But they CAN run it on a Linux distro, in userspace; Linux has plenty of non-GPL software for it. So, if someone wants to have DRM on Linux, they are free to do so, so long as they work in userspace.

Furthermore, it IS possible to work around the kernel issue: just like NVidia have a GPL kernel module (which is just a thin interface) and a non-GPL module which is the actual driver, anyone else can do the same, effectively running a non-GPL kernel module with the Linux kernel. The only limitation here would be to not distribute the kernel along with the non-GPL code. This can be done as NVidia do it; having the driver downloaded from their site. It could also be given on a separate CD.

This practice of NVidia is considered unethical by many in the Free Software camp, but as we all know the NVidia binary drivers are widely used. DRM could be implemented for Linux in a similar manner.

So, the GPL3, even if adopted by the Linux kernel, won't prevent DRM from being used on Linux (but it might hinder it a bit). But, the kernel won't move to GPL3 anyhow, so it doesn't matter.

Luggy
September 8th, 2006, 07:09 AM
I'm pretty shocked by the amount of users on this forum that don't have a problem with DRM.

It makes me think about where the Linux community is going... are we going to be attracted people who actually give a rats *** about freedom or is it just a bunch of people too cheap to buy Windows.

I understand why Linus ( or anyone else for that matter ) would not like GPLv3. If you are trying to attract bigger industry don't put in provisions that say you cannot patent software.

The thing is though, is that the only reason why big industry wants to be able to patent software is because they know they can get away with it because the majority of the population is ignorant of how software patents effect them.

The more people get educated and understand how negatively software patents will cripple development and the software industry, the less big industry will likely to try and patent software.

All GPLv3 is trying to do is to prevent me from taking a piece of software you wrote and licenced under the present GPL, patenting it and calling it my own idea.

terminatingzero
September 8th, 2006, 07:33 AM
The restrictions imposed by v2 makes the software written using that license usable by anyone on anything the v3 actually takes away that ability as it forces anyone who wants to link to anything GPL open up the DRM keys making it basically pointless.

DRM is pointless. This has never been about the Companies, or you, or I, this has always been about the people the GNU/Linux community as a whole and DRM has never been for the people.



Software patents restrict your freedom to code. They put programmers in constant fear of tripping over a patent landmine and force them to pay royalties just so they can implement the most basic of ideas.


Linux and GNU is based on freedom. The freedom to hack, modify, share and re-distrobute software for anyone and everyone around the globe. Software patents prevent you from doing this. What good is it to be able to look at code if you cannot use it without paying royalties The clauses RMS is adding to version 3 of the GPL ensure that our Freedom is never lost.

Someone else who understands. Thanks Luggy. You are completely right.


I'm pretty shocked by the amount of users on this forum that don't have a problem with DRM.

It makes me think about where the Linux community is going... are we going to be attracted people who actually give a rats *** about freedom or is it just a bunch of people too cheap to buy Windows.

I am thinking the same thing right now.

kripkenstein
September 8th, 2006, 08:31 AM
It makes me think about where the Linux community is going... are we going to be attracted people who actually give a rats *** about freedom or is it just a bunch of people too cheap to buy Windows.


Good question. Ideally, I think we would like both those who believe in the ideals of freedom and those who want OSS because of its low cost and convenience. If we have only one of those groups, we will lose out. What we need is a way to accommodate both types of people.

The GPL2/GPL3 issue is very much like the GPL/LGPL issue, in a sense. What I mean here is this: if GTK+ were GPL (and not LGPL, which it is), then proprietary software couldn't be written using GTK+. But, a wise choice was made to make GTK+ LGPL, and we thus allow proprietary software to be run on GNOME. Note that the GNOME apps themselves are GPL. So, you can write a proprietary app for GNOME (using GTK+ and other LGPL GNOME libraries), but you can't e.g. fork Evolution (which is GPL) into something proprietary. So, a good decision about what should be GPL and what should be LGPL helped the GNOME desktop (1) allow proprietary apps to run on it, but (2) not allow the GNOME apps themselves to be 'hijacked' and made proprietary.

Now, why do I say this is similar to the GPL2/GPL3 issue? Because good decisions about what should be v2 and what should be v3 are also needed, and will be similarly helpful. Perhaps Linus is right in keeping the kernel at v2, thus allowing DRM-type modules to be written for it. On the other hand, perhaps making Evolution v3 is wise because we don't want a fork of it that (ab)uses DRM and/or software patents.

In the end, we will probably have GPL2 for the kernel, GPL3 for the GNOME apps, and LGPL3 for GTK+ and other GNOME libraries. As I see it, this may be a good thing.

Cynical
September 8th, 2006, 08:41 AM
Sorry Linus, I'm going to have to side with Stallman on this one.



Personally I want TPM support in Linux and a TPM chip in my laptop as long as *I* am the one in control of what I allow to run on MY machine.
Well thats the main problem with TPM, you don't have control.


Or he could go back to the joke, oh, sorry i mean the hurd. Linus is a realist, he accepts what comes and embraces new things that will benefit more developers and users while Stallman goes all white and screams "AGAINST MY IDEOLOGY AND I DECIDE"

Have you read the draft of the GPLv3? Stallman is trying to protect your rights as a user of free software and the rights of the software developers who make it.


Luggy, your last two posts are the best I've ever read on this forum. I'm also saddened by the fact that people here are comfortable with DRM and TPM.



It boils down to this: we wrote the software. That's the only part _I_ care about, and perhaps (at least to me) more importantly, because it's the only part we created, it's the only part that I feel we have a moral right to control.

I _literally_ feel that we do not - as software developers - have the moral right to enforce our rules on hardware manufacturers. We are not crusaders, trying to force people to bow to our superior God. We are trying to show others that co-operation and openness works better.

That's my standpoint, at least. Always has been. It's the reason I chose the GPL in the first place (and it's the exact same reason that I wrote the original Linux copyright license). I do _software_, and I license _software_.

And I realize that others don't always agree with me. That's fine. You don't have to. But I licensed my project under a license _I_ agreed with, which is the GPLv2. Others who feel differently can license under their own licenses. Including, very much, the GPLv3.

I'm not arguing against the GPLv3.

I'm arguing that the GPLv3 is wrong for _me_, and it's not the license I ever chose.

TPM/DRM/Software Patents are the exact opposite of "co-operation and openness", and I would rather not give them a chance to ruin my experience using linux, which is why I disagree with Linus on the above. He has good reasoning, but Stallman's revisions weren't created to hurt hardware manufacturers, they were created to protect us end users.

M7S
September 8th, 2006, 09:08 AM
Are you guys seriously worried that this licence would split up the linuxcommunity? We will survive GPLv3. Perhaps everybody will use GPLv3 afterwards, perhaps everybody uses GPLv2. Probably we will see both GPLv2 and GPLv3 in use side by side. What we wont see is a split between gnu and linux. All talk of which part that is more important Gnu or Linux is meaningless in this discussion.

Linus choosed GPLv2 because he liked it. Copyleft was something that he embrassed, not something that Stallman forced on him, so bsd people please back of. Iirc Linus licenced Linux under GPLv2 and not "GPLv2 or later". If Linus wants the kernel to stay GPLv2 it will, I doubt someone seriously will try to fork it to GPLv3. Linus techical skills is too highly appreciated for that.

Don't be so hard on Stallman either. Sure he is a ideologist and a bit extreme about it. He likes to be in the spotlight. But he doesn't try to force his on other. He just tries to protect those developers who choosed to released their work under "GPLv2 or later", those developers who don't want to do the hard work for people who don't respect the freedoms.

As for "free but restricted" being an oxymoron... in this world "free but restricted" is as free as we can get. Or do you think that prisons is an all way through bad idéa as well?

Regards,
M7S

Edit: I write too slow :( there has been some exelent posts since I've started to write. This post feels a little bit to agressive and bitter right next to them.

M7S
September 8th, 2006, 09:34 AM
TPM/DRM/Software Patents are the exact opposite of "co-operation and openness", and I would rather not give them a chance to ruin my experience using linux, which is why I disagree with Linus on the above.I think that Linus meant that we should show them that tpm/drm/patents are wrong instead of forcing people not to use them.

kripkenstein
September 8th, 2006, 10:06 AM
Another matter related to the GPL v3 / GPL v2 issue is the different focus of the Linux kernel and the GNU tools.

The majority of GNU development (gcc, GNOME, etc.) focuses on desktop and server computers. The Linux kernel, on the other hand, is also a powerful force in the embedded market, and perhaps on the way to dominate that area.

Now, the embedded market has a great deal of interest in TPM-type technologies, for example, a flash key with data that can only be read under certain conditions. For this reason alone, it makes great sense for Linus to keep his project at the GPL v2, and not v3.

With the kernel at v2 and the GNU projects at v3 (some LGPL, some GPL), we might see DRMed coffeemakers and washing machines, and perhaps DRM running on top of GNOME, but not DRMed versions of the GNOME apps.

mtn
September 8th, 2006, 11:28 AM
That article was so bad I just had to write to the editor. Bit of a reactionary rant but pretty much lays out my, probably very ignorant, view.

Dear Forbes,

I thought your article of 08.31.06, The Problem With St. Ignucius, http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/31/stallman-linux-opensource_cz_dl_0831stallman.html?boxes=custom, was hugely biased against the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and Richard Stallman and showed an utter lack of understanding regarding the issues that were under discussion. The article managed to completely ignore what the FSF are about and the issues they are concerned with, as well as lack any discussion about what Digital Rights Management (DRM) is, and the implications that it will have in terms of users access to digital media. Anyone who has the slightest bit of knowledge about the kinds of issues this article was supposed to be covering would immediately recognise this to be biased nonsense, to the point of being patronising. Far from being informative about any of the issues surrounding Linux and Open Source this article says a lot more about the Forbes magazine and your editorial line. As far as I know Richard Stallman is not “anti-corporate”, as you state, but has some concerns surrounding a global economic system PURLEY based on profit generation, with some justification as has been seen with corporate scandal after corporate scandal, as you should well be aware. A brief look at the FSF's website would have made clear to your columnist the views and concerns of the FSF as a quote from their site indicates.

”The motive for DRM schemes is to increase profits for those who impose them, but their profit is a side issue when millions of people’s freedom is at stake; desire for profit, though not wrong in itself, cannot justify denying the public control over its technology. Defending freedom means thwarting DRM.”
Richard Stallman, President of the FSF:
Available from: http://defectivebydesign.org/en/about

Of course you will discount this email as being from a “radical”, in the parlance of the NeoCon agenda that I presume the Forbes is a part of, the term adopted to discredit any view that does not conform to a narrow and largely insignificant view of the world as this article plainly demonstrates. I certainly will not be turning to the Forbes for information. I hope in future you will try to introduce some balance and quality in to your articles.

Yours sincerely

prizrak
September 8th, 2006, 02:15 PM
Well thats the main problem with TPM, you don't have control.

The main problem is that you can't separate technology from implementation. DRM/TPM is a technology. You are talking about a certain implemenation of that technology.

Consider guns (weapons in general) they can be used by criminals to hurt the law obiding citizens or by the police forces to protect the citizens. They could also be used as a deterrent, you are not likely to attack someone with a gun. In this case the weapon doesn't even have to be used just there. Can you say that all weapons are bad by default?

Like it or not DRM is part of our lives and we need to accept it as long as it is implemented in the way that doesn't hurt either the rights holder or the end user.


Patents protect ideas, they do not protect the creative works of authors, inventors or programmers, that's what copyrights do.
You must not be very well versed in patent law. A patent protects a physical implementation of the idea. I can patent an engine design but that doesn't mean that no one else can create an engine that uses the same principles. Copyright protects [again] a specific implementation of a work of art, the only reason copyright includes code is because code is written and written word was also concidered a work of art at the time of the laws being created. You can draw a picture of an upright walking mouse but cannot draw Mickey Mouse.

As far as software patents go I'm not too sure how it's even possible to patent it or why there would be a need to as copyright term is longer than patent term.

I will agree that there are some retarded *** patents in existance at this point. However the thing is that patents can be overturned if needed. I agree with GPL protection against random patent lawsuits but as mentioned above it would be difficult to deal with suing FOSS because of the rate of change.

terminatingzero
September 8th, 2006, 03:00 PM
mtn,
Very well put e-mail.

terminatingzero
September 8th, 2006, 03:13 PM
I believe this article addresses the freedom to modify and DRM:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/07/new_zealand_redefine.html

M7S
September 8th, 2006, 09:43 PM
The main problem is that you can't separate technology from implementation. DRM/TPM is a technology. You are talking about a certain implemenation of that technology.

Consider guns (weapons in general) they can be used by criminals to hurt the law obiding citizens or by the police forces to protect the citizens. They could also be used as a deterrent, you are not likely to attack someone with a gun. In this case the weapon doesn't even have to be used just there. Can you say that all weapons are bad by default?Guns can be used for good things and still you have to work hard to get a licence for a gun in most parts of the world, because they can be so dangerous. Some tools need extra restrictions.

Could you give an example on some good use of TPM? How can it be used in a way that wont conflict with software freedoms?

Regards,
M7S

kanem
September 9th, 2006, 02:38 AM
That article was so bad I just had to write to the editor.
Nice one. That article was tripe. The posts in this thread (even the ones I don't agree with) have been far more thought provoking and informational than that article.

SoundMachine
September 9th, 2006, 08:07 PM
Seriously, brother just do me a favor and read the info on the thread in the backyard about DRM and Trusted computing If you think some of the links are BS that's ok but I'm sure you'll find that there is some excellent info in there just take a read. You have to remember stay neutral we're getting a little heated here and when it comes right down to it we're all on the same side. That's why we're here. Right?:D

Seriously brother, read a thread that i will make about how RMS is a murderer and a thief, it's filled with about as much facts as that thread, i was invited to it but stayed out for a reason, i would not be able to reply without insulting everyone who believes that.

Here's a wild thought, if an article starts with "arrr fellow pirates" then it's probably not worth reading. :rolleyes:

SoundMachine
September 9th, 2006, 08:16 PM
I think that Linus meant that we should show them that tpm/drm/patents are wrong instead of forcing people not to use them.

Well, TPM is perhaps the greatest security measur since the HW firewall was invented so not that, but you are nail on head on the rest, it's up to the user, not some political ideologist master who directs everything, which is what RMS wants to be.

croak77
September 9th, 2006, 09:03 PM
TPM is a security measure for what? Why would I want a third party to get infomation on my PC? Encryption and cryptography is good if you need it. But I doubt that's all TPM would be used for.

SoundMachine
September 9th, 2006, 09:21 PM
TPM is a security measure for what? Why would I want a third party to get infomation on my PC? Encryption and cryptography is good if you need it. But I doubt that's all TPM would be used for.

Third party?

You are joking, right?

TPM with a kernel module for it and userspace programs to handle it is the best way bar none to ensure that your software is not compromised PERIOD.

Now if you want to give anyone else control of the TPM functions, well, sure, you could i guess, i mean if anyone wanted to do that, Vista does not, Palladium wasn't even the "omg world control" stuff it was made out to be by paranoid FSF'ers and that has been scrapped for a user controlled drive encryption scheme as the main highlight.

TPM is an excellent security function wher i as an admin can control the users, as the admin of your own system you can control your own software and exploits will be a thing of the past.

Cynical
September 9th, 2006, 09:28 PM
The main problem is that you can't separate technology from implementation. DRM/TPM is a technology. You are talking about a certain implemenation of that technology.

Consider guns (weapons in general) they can be used by criminals to hurt the law obiding citizens or by the police forces to protect the citizens. They could also be used as a deterrent, you are not likely to attack someone with a gun. In this case the weapon doesn't even have to be used just there. Can you say that all weapons are bad by default?

Like it or not DRM is part of our lives and we need to accept it as long as it is implemented in the way that doesn't hurt either the rights holder or the end user.

The main problem is that you dont seem to understand that Trusted Computing is being forced to trust the designers of the software. Meaning you don't have control, whoever is putting this module into your system is the one who decides what is restricted / not restricted. I don't want someone telling me what my computer can or cannot do, even if its to protect me. I can do that myself.


Well, TPM is perhaps the greatest security measur since the HW firewall was invented.

Let me ask you, do linux/bsd users need more security? There are, give or take, 100 viruses for linux. Most of which couldn't do anything more serious to our systems than most forum users do on a daily basis. I think the negatives outweigh the positives in this case.


I think that Linus meant that we should show them that tpm/drm/patents are wrong instead of forcing people not to use them.
Yes I'm sure thats what he meant. I can understand why he thinks we should, but what happens when we live in a drm/tpm/patent infested world, and everyone realizes, I dont like this. What do we do then? I mean forget about the fact that most users don't even know what these technologies are now. They won't realize something is wrong until its too late. Everyone who I know thinks copyright and patent are the same thing :\

SoundMachine
September 9th, 2006, 09:34 PM
The main problem is that you dont seem to understand that Trusted Computing is being forced to trust the designers of the software. Meaning you don't have control, whoever is putting this module into your system is the one who decides what is restricted / not restricted. I don't want someone telling me what my computer can or cannot do, even if its to protect me. I can do that myself.

********! YOU are the one in control (or rather, the admin is, if it's your home computer, that would be YOU), you have read too many tinfoil hat sites and gotten your brain twisted sideways and trust me, it's not good for you.



Let me ask you, do linux/bsd users need more security? There are, give or take, 100 viruses for linux. Most of which couldn't do anything more serious to our systems than most forum users do on a daily basis. I think the negatives outweigh the positives in this case.

Those who do not think ahead will be left behind, what? you don't think that Linux is susceptible to rootkits and the like? Not good enough for me, i want to be sure and TPM is a way to be in control where *I* can be in control.



Yes I'm sure thats what he meant. I can understand why he thinks we should, but what happens when we live in a drm/tpm/patent infested world, and everyone realizes, I dont like this. What do we do then? I mean forget about the fact that most users don't even know what these technologies are now. They won't realize something is wrong until its too late. Everyone who I know thinks copyright and patent are the same thing :\

TPM is a great thing, DRM is a copyright thing, patents is something else, by lumping them together you are making sure that NO ONE can take you serious.

terminatingzero
September 9th, 2006, 10:39 PM
Soundmachine you are talking about the original intentions of Trusted Computing in which case I would be in total agreement with you however the intentions have changed. I guessing you didn't read all the way through the thread and read the actual legislation that exploits these new technologies. Try not to get hostile man try to stay neutral here. I have to disagree with you on this primarily because what you are making reference to is the propaganda as well as the original intentions though I do understand how you could feel that way because that is how I started out until I started reading the legitimate information such as the legislation itself, and artcles as well as essays from numerous college professors. The article from lobby for linux was posted to start the thread to show how potentially harmful the things that are in the works can be as well as show how imperitive it is that it be taken seriously and be stopped before it is allowed to gain momentum to that degree of severity. I wish you had read farther along before you decided to make this quote.


Seriously brother, read a thread that i will make about how RMS is a murderer and a thief, it's filled with about as much facts as that thread, i was invited to it but stayed out for a reason, i would not be able to reply without insulting everyone who believes that.

Here's a wild thought, if an article starts with "arrr fellow pirates" then it's probably not worth reading.
:roll:
If you had read the posts that followed someone had already brought that up and I clarified my position for having posted that link.

croak77
September 9th, 2006, 11:12 PM
Third party?

You are joking, right?


Nope. There has been debate over the use's of TPM. Such as remote attestation, censorship, loss of anonymity and others. I think TPM as in Mirosoft Bitlocker is fine as long as the software allows the user to transfer data from one pc to another. But that is not all of the possible uses of TPM. Some of it will be out of the user's control.

SoundMachine
September 10th, 2006, 12:41 AM
Soundmachine you are talking about the original intentions of Trusted Computing in which case I would be in total agreement with you however the intentions have changed. I guessing you didn't read all the way through the thread and read the actual legislation that exploits these new technologies. Try not to get hostile man try to stay neutral here. I have to disagree with you on this primarily because what you are making reference to is the propaganda as well as the original intentions though I do understand how you could feel that way because that is how I started out until I started reading the legitimate information such as the legislation itself, and artcles as well as essays from numerous college professors. The article from lobby for linux was posted to start the thread to show how potentially harmful the things that are in the works can be as well as show how imperitive it is that it be taken seriously and be stopped before it is allowed to gain momentum to that degree of severity. I wish you had read farther along before you decided to make this quote.


I'm going to ignore this, believing all the propaganda while ignoring the reason why it is already in te Linux kernel is too much. Believing propaganda while the Linux community moves along with the same implementations isn't funny, it just goes to show one thing, some people are so stupid that they are just sad.


:roll:
If you had read the posts that followed someone had already brought that up and I clarified my position for having posted that link.

You don't get it, you will never get it, not even when Linus himself explains it to you, why it is implemented in the kernel you will get it. You are just ignorant and what's worse, you prefer to stay ignorant instead of educating yourself on the suject.

I'd pity you if you were worth my pity, you are not.

SoundMachine
September 10th, 2006, 12:48 AM
Nope. There has been debate over the use's of TPM. Such as remote attestation, censorship, loss of anonymity and others. I think TPM as in Mirosoft Bitlocker is fine as long as the software allows the user to transfer data from one pc to another. But that is not all of the possible uses of TPM. Some of it will be out of the user's control.

You do realize that to HAVE third party control you'd need Palladium that was scrapped 6 months ago?

Of course you don't, you just don't know and your ignorance drives your fear to limits beyond.

TPM is in the users control ALWAYS, it's designed to be, which is why it is such a great thing. Would you install a third party app to use it to control your computer? No? Then don't, how hard is that, EXACTLY?

System pro's and admins welcome this because it means that at work we get to decide what you can install down to a barebone clean system, if you are the admin, you decide, if you want to install a third party app that takes control of your system (which would be mighty stupid) then go ahead, just don't blame your own stupidity on anything else.

croak77
September 10th, 2006, 01:08 AM
Palladium is not scapped it'e been renamed and renamed again. It's now called System Integrity Team. It's not going to be in Vista, just Bitlocker, as far as I know is still being developed for future Windows releases.

terminatingzero
September 10th, 2006, 03:25 AM
Soundmachine I will forgive you for your previous comments. I will however remove myself from this debate until it can be had in a civil manner. I would like to ask that in keeping with the spirit of Ubuntu that the next person or persons you enter into a debate with be treated with more dignity and respect. Thank you.

Cynical
September 11th, 2006, 12:14 AM
********! YOU are the one in control (or rather, the admin is, if it's your home computer, that would be YOU), you have read too many tinfoil hat sites and gotten your brain twisted sideways and trust me, it's not good for you.

Thats news, I didnt know wikipedia was a tinfoil hat site. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing#Proposed owner override for TC)


TPM is a great thing, DRM is a copyright thing, patents is something else, by lumping them together you are making sure that NO ONE can take you serious.

wow chill out. I'm saying that TPM/DRM/Patents are all terrible solutions for the 'problems' we have today. To be honest I don't care if you take me seriously, you seem to be too wrapped up in the argument to say anything constructive.

maniacmusician
September 11th, 2006, 01:42 AM
@Cynical: to be fair, wikipedia is maintained by a community, of normal people...and if the majority of the people aren't properly educated about something, then it's bound to show up in publications like those.

@soundmachine: you are a little out of line...this is a public forum, so please take it down a notch? it's one thing to have debates, but at least we can conduct ourselves slightly professionaly.

The problem here is annoyingly clear to an objective source like myself; the problem is that we're not educated properly about TPM. Soundmachine made some excellent points about the use of TPM, and they shouldnt be disregarded just because he was rude about it. Most of us talk about TPM after picking up little itty bitty pieces of information on our little trip through the internet...but with just little bits and pieces, you often don't know how to put them together.

So what do we do about this? Someone educated about TPM, yet unbiased, needs to write an article or some type of essay about it so that the rest of us can absorb it. I'll be totally honest...I have no idea what TPM is. I mean I've got a general concept in mind from dropping in on debates like this but i don't really know what it is. SoundMachine made excellent points and seems to really understand it...but probably a little biased. I mean, we need a central location for something like this, a source that we trust. perhaps aysiu's psychocats website? I don't know how much he knows about this.

But really. let's just take a step backwards and look at what TPM really is...advantages, disadvantages, etc.