Should Open Source Become A Crusade?

[Kernel Sanders]

***ARTICLE*** (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/26/linux_torvalds_gpl/)

Linus is concerned that the Free Software Foundation is more interested in a "crusade" than practicalities.

The practicalities being, making Linux viable for all types of commercial endevours, as well as home use.

He argued that if GPL 3.0 had been in effect, TiVo would have not selected the Linux operating system to use for its new set top box for example. As such, the widespread deployment of linux, and its reputation would have been tarnished, as TiVo would only be the first in a long list of companies saying NO to Linux because of GPL 3.0

Is Linus right? Or should the Free Software Foundation really be on a crusade to spread freedom in the computing universe? (In this case, crusading for freedom from DRM)

What do you all think?

EDIT: The article posted is just there for some background on the topic, (Like you guys even need it! :cool: ) its not what prompted the question as to whether open source should be a crusade or not.

I'd be interested to get your opinions!

- John

[shamrock_uk]

Not in my opinion.

I love it, I use it and I support selected projects with my cash too. But I've nothing against closed source programmes either and was a fully paid-up user of Opera for example.

I'm a firm believer in using what works best for the end user, regardless of the status of the source code. Embarking on a crusade just annoys people - lets raise awareness sure, but that's not the way to go about it.

Now open standards on the other hand, that definitely should be a crusade, and one we need to fight hard.

[Stormy Eyes]

Good sex should be a crusade, not software.

[fuscia]

yes, and no. it should be a crusade to help the people of undeveloped countries with technology as they now stand a greater risk of falling even further behind. otherwise, LOL!

[Kvark]

On the specific issue here with a GPL v3 licence that would forbid DRM... Yes, to require GPLed software to be free from DRM is important to the users' freedom. I think GPLed software should be open, not locked down and full of restrictions.

But many content providers are not going to accept that their content is available in formats that does not control the users with DRM. Open source software needs multimedia content to be an altarnative on some markets such as the desktop. A platform that you can't even listen to music or watch movies on won't be very attractive. So to be left without the ability to play DRMed content legally would be a high price to pay for remaining free.

Whats really needed if software that is open and not locked down is going to have a chance in the long run is a free culture movement that is strong enough to produce free music and movies that are good enough to give some serious competition to propriarity content just like open source does on the software market.

[eriqk]

No, because subversion is better than wasting your energy on a crusade.

Groet, Erik

[Bandit]

The GPL 3.0 would force the opening of the source code for DRM code,
This can be bad and good.. I will make any DRM code available to us all.
The bad is that no one will use linux if they have to disclose the source to thier on DRM software.
Linus had a good example "Tivo".
I can see how the the Free Software Foundation is trying to protect us, but most big corperations are evil and evil will shy away from good.. I know.. haha...
But Linux needs to have its on Zen, a balance of the good and bad for it to survive.
Cheers,
Joey

[super]

nope
there are far too many more important issues to crusade for.

[bored2k]

What super said.

[prizrak]

Nothing should ever be a crusade, we had that happen before didn't work out all that well ;)

[Bragador]

Bah why not, it could be fun.

I say let's start the crusade !!!

:twisted:

[RaiSuli]

No, because subversion is better than wasting your energy on a crusade.

Exactly!

[Stormy Eyes]

nope
there are far too many more important issues to crusade for.

Like good sex.

[mstlyevil]

Like good sex.

Even alone! :rolleyes: :-k :-# [-(

[fuscia]

nope
there are far too many more important issues to crusade for.

even as a third world issue, there are more important things to crusade for. in the united states, it's on a par with snowboarders vs. skiers.

[DrFunkenstein]

Required reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_vs._free_software

And while we are at it, many people have already pointed out that Linus' interpretation of the GPL3 (or rather its first draft) is wrong. Also, though people make this claim again and again, the draft of the GPL3 is not about making DRM on Linux impossible (that is, for example, drmed content and the software needed to use it would still be possible), it's about making it sure that DRM can't be used to make free software unfree again.

[K.Mandla]

Or should the Free Software Foundation really be on a crusade to spread freedom in the computing universe? (In this case, crusading for freedom from DRM)
What do you mean by a "crusade"? (I'm not being obtuse here; I'm a bit ignorant on this issue. Sorry. :oops: )

[bored2k]

What do you mean by a "crusade"? (I'm not being obtuse here; I'm a bit ignorant on this issue. Sorry. :oops: )
Google is our friend ;) :
campaign. a series of actions advancing a principle or tending toward a particular end; "he supported populist campaigns"; "they worked in the cause of world peace"; "the team was ready for a drive toward the pennant"; "the movement to end slavery"; "contributed to the war effort"

go on a crusade; fight a holy war

[K.Mandla]

Google is our friend ;) :
Mmkay, so what's meant in this context? I'm just trying to understand how the principle could become a crusade. Perhaps I just have a different connotation for the word. What would it be like if it were a crusade?

[briancurtin]

i dont have the time or the tolerance for a crusade. except maybe one that stormy is talking about.

[DrFunkenstein]

Mmkay, so what's meant in this context?
I think it's pretty obvious that the only purpose of calling it a crusade is to give the whole poll a negative spin from the getgo.
After all, the term has a lot of negative connotations. Crusade, doesn't that mean irrational, bloodthirsty fanatics?

The OP could of course easily have chosen to give the issue a positive spin, like for example "Is freedom important", but he didn't.

And witnessing the reactions to this poll, the negative spin seems to work just fine. After all, who wants to be seen as a crusader.

[dtfinch]

There's no need to crusade. Open source will simply grow because of its merits, and proprietary software will just have to compete. Companies that fail to compete will fail to survive.

Now, if I avoid products from certain proprietary software companies, and use open source instead, that's because I don't want their products, not because I'm on an open source crusade. If their proprietary licenses and prices aren't outweighed by the quality of their software, or their software won't run well alongside my other software, then they're just not competing hard enough, and they won't make the sale.

[Jucato]

The fight for freedom should be a crusade, but open source (or even free/libre software) shouldn't be the standard bearer. True, open source, especially Linux, is the crowning glory of all that FLOSS holds dear and true, but one of the reasons that it has been that successful is not because people have been crying out loud about how this is THE way to go. It worked more to like "hey this stuff is good, try it out and see for yourself." Telling people about how one stuff is good and another bad is, in my book, plain FUD.

About DRM, on the other hand, I'm not a lawyer so I can't really say. But all I understand is this: GPL v3 is trying to stop DRM from using FLOSS to make non-FLOSS stuff. Business/financial factors aside, I think this is just plain unfair. Look at the reactions to threads about the Linspire OOoFf and CompareOS issues and see how people get negative reactions about selling free stuff. How much more on what DRM "might" do with FLOSS? However, I think Stallman's hard stance might not be so good, too. Maybe they can find some workaround work things out, just as they were able to come up with LGPL to allow linking to propriety libraries (if I understand it right).

Again, freedom should be a crusade, but one that should be fought on many turfs. I just think that it isn't Open Source's role to go upfront.

[GreyFox503]

I think it's pretty obvious that the only purpose of calling it a crusade is to give the whole poll a negative spin from the getgo.
After all, the term has a lot of negative connotations. Crusade, doesn't that mean irrational, bloodthirsty fanatics?

The OP could of course easily have chosen to give the issue a positive spin, like for example "Is freedom important", but he didn't.

And witnessing the reactions to this poll, the negative spin seems to work just fine. After all, who wants to be seen as a crusader.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Sorry, John, but the polls you've made seem very spun toward a particular answer.

[Kernel Sanders]

^^^^^

Apologies! But that was certainly not my intention.

The only reason that I used the word "crusade" is because that is exactly how Linus Torvalds described the actions of the Free Software Foundation.

What this whole thread was really getting at, was that if Linus is right, and the Free Software Foundation is on a "crusade", should they really be doing that/are they right in doing that?

I really cant see the bias/negative spin in my posts that others are seeing? Because that has really NEVER been my intention?

All the best!

- John \\:D/

[DrFunkenstein]

^^^^^

Apologies! But that was certainly not my intention.

The only reason that I used the word "crusade" is because that is exactly how Linus Torvalds described the actions of the Free Software Foundation.

What this whole thread was really getting at, was that if Linus is right, and the Free Software Foundation is on a "crusade", should they really be doing that/are they right in doing that?

I really cant see the bias/negative spin in my posts that others are seeing? Because that has really NEVER been my intention?

All the best!

- John \\:D/
Linus is clearly using the word crusade to express his negative opinion about what the FSF does.

You simply took this negative word and acted like it was a neutral and accurate description and asked if a crusade is what it should be.

Sorry, but though it might not have been your intention, the poll question is biased.

[DigitalDuality]

First off, i'm not one for the GPL 3. Frankly i think it's stupid and not in the spirit of OSS.

I also think there's alot more important issues than FOSS. So don't think i'm putting things out of perspective. You're talking to a card carrying member of the ACLU, Libertarian Party, and Green Party. Now that being said..

I feel OSS is very important. As are the issues (laws, business deals ) surrounding patent laws, telecommunications, etc etc. These things control economies, these things control communication.

Could you think of two more important issues to have a democracy by its balls?

For instance. The voting machines in america are proprietary software. On a sample of 40 machines out of florida after the 2004 election, 100,000 major errors were found:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/6628.html

First off, i don't believe in private voting machines anyways. But they don't have paper trails. They're proprietary. Patented and owned by a private entity.

This is where private hardware and software, has the ability to cripple the very foundation of my country.


Furthermore, communication and education is vital for the poor to raise themselves out of poverty. They're not going to do this (legally) by purchasing a 200 buck copy of windows, a 150 buck copy of Office, 1000 buck copy of a graphic design suite. I feel this is an issue that effect all nations, but 3rd world countries in particular.

When i think of the thousands of desk clerks in government office who do nothing but do memo's, thank you letters, and basic email.. and think.. for each other them.. there's at least 400 bucks worth of software on their machines. 400 bucks of my tax money.

400 bucks that could go towards education of a child. 400 bucks that could go to the healthcare of a wounded soldier. 400 bucks that could go to science grants for medical research.

When the US and the UK governments request Apple and Microsoft to build backdoors in their operating systems so they can police me, you, or anyone else for that matter.

When the NSA gets furious about Skype and Vonage b/c even they can't crack the encyption to listen in and is pushing for them to open up backdoors as well.

As you can see.. it's a matter of controlling the populace, it's a matter of being fiscally irresponsible.

While the issue of who uses what, is rather mild and tame.. this has much larger implications. And each of these issues can be traced back to a Proprietary vs OSS models and the benefits and pitfalls of each.

So yeah. In a good deal of arenas, OSS should be a crusade.

[blueturtl]

No.

Closed Source is not automatically inferior. Freedom of choice should be given also between Closed- and OpenSource software.

[IYY]

I tend to support RMS on this issue. I am somewhat of an idealist on many issues: freedom of speech, privacy, enviormental issues... One could even call me a Socialist. So, I see Open Source, and GNU, as a crusade and I like it this way.

I just think that only through a "crusade" can OSS truly reach its potential.

But I do see the wisdom in Linus' approach, too.

[Kernel Sanders]

I think what the FSF is trying to do is to grab Open Source Software by the balls and shout, "ITS OURS!"

They are trying to say, with open source, you should be able to download it for free, change it however the hell you want, but you will NOT close off any part of it, or impose restrictions on any part of it! And if you do alter it in any way that restricts the user, you will make your private signing keys freely available so that if the user so wishes, they can ignore your restrictions.

So basically, as Linus put it, "they are crusading". In my opinion, they are crusading for the ultimate freedoms, the ideals for which Open Source and the FSF stands. What the hell is wrong with that?

Linus doesnt like this because this "ultimate freedom" wont make Linux commercially viable. But who cares?

No-one can seriously convince me that if Linux bans restrictions on its software so that the likes of TiVo wont use it Linux will die.

IMHO, keeping a section of the computing world TOTALLY free for the good of mankind can only be a good thing?

Crusade on FSF! \\:D/

[DigitalDuality]

the GPL2 vs the GPL3 is kinda like the difference between Pro-Choice, and Pro-Abortion.

The freedom lacks on the latter of the two.

[commodore]

I think that people should help others understand free software better, but not forcing them to use it.

I will never use Opera. It may be good, but it's not free software. I do some things out of pure principle.

[BLH]

I agree with Commodore. From a Noob POV-- I like having the choice to pick which Distro I run(currently running Gentoo on one machine and Ubuntu on the other). It's great to learn about all of the software that is out there( and having the resources available to explain things when I get stuck). I feel I would have been totally turned off to open source / *nixes in general if I encounterd some raving mad man telling me to switch or else.

[henriquemaia]

No.