Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Asked To Distance Themselves From RMS

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by zester View Post
    The anti-tivoization and anti-patents clauses are a joke and have no teeth ... there unenforceable.
    I heard about it, but you didn't explain why. Why do you think they are unenforceable?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by zester View Post
      Tivoization works both ways
      No it doesn't, Tivoization works _one_ way, which is to prevent the end user from running his/her own code on the hardware they bought, this in turn is what GPLv3 fixes.

      Originally posted by zester View Post
      Keep in mind "Proprietary Software" makers
      fear the GPL and normally avoid it at all cost.
      Eh, no shit. GPL stands for the exact opposite of proprietary, proprietary by definition denies the end user the source code while GPL exists to give rights to the end user, one of which is to recieve the source code to the actual program they recieved.

      Originally posted by zester View Post
      You wan't to control a platform then you need to think outside the box.
      What the heck does this refer to?

      Originally posted by zester View Post
      The GPL is all about control always has been,
      Bullshit, GPL is no more about control than any other licence, a licence in turn is nothing but a set of conditions for using something.

      GPL is about giving rights to the end user which in proprietary settings only belong to the developer, which includes the right to the source code, the right to modify, copy and distribute both program and source code, which are all typically not allowed or even possible with proprietary software.

      Further GPL protects these rights by being reciprocal, that is programs using GPL licenced code are derivates and as such also subject to granting the same end user rights.

      This is something which has made GPL popular amongst developers since if someone takes their code and modifies / enhances it, they (the original developer) will have the right to those enhancements as source code when they recieve the modified version of their code as an 'end user'.

      Originally posted by zester View Post
      and apparently so is everyone else because GNU and FSF isn't very popular these days.
      LOL, and so you show your true colors. Just because you obviously dislike GNU, FSF and GPL don't try to pass yourself off as 'everyone else', you are just another anti-GPL zelot.

      Originally posted by zester View Post
      The anti-tivoization and anti-patents clauses are a joke and have no teeth ... there unenforceable.
      More bullshit, of course they are enforcable, this is the reason why Apple for instance won't distribute any GPLv3 licenced code, because by doing so they will be granting any recipient the right to use any software patents Apple may have on any of the GPLv3 licenced code they are distributing. And since Apple is very happy to sue companies over software patents then they won't touch GPLv3.

      That is GPLv3 working as it should, as software patents is the greatest threat there is to software development, open source software included.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
        I heard about it, but you didn't explain why. Why do you think they are unenforceable?
        Because they entitle them selfs to rights and privileges, that only a judge in a court of law can grant. And different parts of the world have different laws in regards. In the US, litigation operates on the state level and each state is different.

        You really can't get any more specific than that. The GPL3 and its tivo/patent clauses might be successful in one state only to be
        deemed invalid in the next.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
          No it doesn't, Tivoization works _one_ way, which is to prevent the end user from running his/her own code on the hardware they bought, this in turn is what GPLv3 fixes.
          Tivoization is a madeup term for one, I associate it with "Lock Out" or "Lock In" which ever way you want to view it is fine. The point was that
          the same methods can be used against "Proprietary Software"

          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
          Eh, no shit. GPL stands for the exact opposite of proprietary, proprietary by definition denies the end user the source code while GPL exists to give rights to the end user, one of which is to recieve the source code to the actual program they recieved.
          There was a hidden meaning to that statement and it went way way way over your head.


          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
          What the heck does this refer to?
          Once again you didn't get it. See above.


          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
          Bullshit, GPL is no more about control than any other licence, a licence in turn is nothing but a set of conditions for using something.
          I won't even bother going into this again.

          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
          GPL is about giving rights to the end user which in proprietary settings only belong to the developer, which includes the right to the source code, the right to modify, copy and distribute both program and source code, which are all typically not allowed or even possible with proprietary software.

          Further GPL protects these rights by being reciprocal, that is programs using GPL licenced code are derivates and as such also subject to granting the same end user rights.

          This is something which has made GPL popular amongst developers since if someone takes their code and modifies / enhances it, they (the original developer) will have the right to those enhancements as source code when they recieve the modified version of their code as an 'end user'.
          I have no argument here as I never said otherwise.

          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
          LOL, and so you show your true colors. Just because you obviously dislike GNU, FSF and GPL don't try to pass yourself off as 'everyone else', you are just another anti-GPL zelot.
          I dislike those that have no compromise and attack anything they don't understand or see the world the way they do. Thats not specific
          to GNU, FSF or the GPL but it appears thats were a large part of the hostility comes from so in that aspect, your correct.

          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
          More bullshit, of course they are enforcable, this is the reason why Apple for instance won't distribute any GPLv3 licenced code, because by doing so they will be granting any recipient the right to use any software patents Apple may have on any of the GPLv3 licenced code they are distributing. And since Apple is very happy to sue companies over software patents then they won't touch GPLv3.

          That is GPLv3 working as it should, as software patents is the greatest threat there is to software development, open source software included.
          I already responded to why there not enforceable, see above.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
            Do you realize all licenses are about imposing conditions to use software, do you? When you get that straight, you can come to the conclusion that copyleft licenses are the closest you can be to not having anyone control a given piece of code. Liberal licenses take the opposite approach, if we talk about control, as anyone can control the code the way they want. They just can not (as with any free license) change the original code base and make it unavailable to others, but only control derivatives.
            Ahhh I see, where your thinking is. We are looking at "control" from different view points.


            Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
            I hope you are not including me on your insult, because I am not being a dick, I'm arguing, that's what forums are for. If you don't like discussions, I think you are in the wrong place.
            Sorry, I was feeling attacked while trying defend my views, not saying that was coming from you. I just lashed out.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by zester View Post
              Tivoization is a madeup term for one, I associate it with "Lock Out" or "Lock In" which ever way you want to view it is fine. The point was that
              the same methods can be used against "Proprietary Software"
              Your point was that a licence which enforces source code availability isn't compatible with proprietary software, wow, you are really on to something... got anything else up your sleeve captain obvious?

              Originally posted by zester View Post
              There was a hidden meaning to that statement and it went way way way over your head.
              Then please explain to a mortal such as me so I can bask in the greatness of your wisdom.

              Originally posted by zester View Post
              I dislike those that have no compromise and attack anything they don't understand or see the world the way they do. Thats not specific
              to GNU, FSF or the GPL but it appears thats were a large part of the hostility comes from so in that aspect, your correct.
              Funny coming from you as you are yourself attacking FSF, GNU and GPL for not 'seeing the world the way YOU do'. Hypocrite much?

              In my experience the one people who really dislike GPL are people who wants to use open source code in proprietary projects which is something they can't if the code is licenced under GPL, sometimes they masquerade as BSD proponents but when push comes to shove they show their true motivation which is to ensure that proprietary projects can make use of open source code, in other words their true allegiance is to proprietary, not to open source.

              Now FSF is firmly against proprietary software and says so loud and clear, and GPL exists to give end users the type of rights which proprietary software takes away. They have the right to create a licence which preserves end user rights and prevents proprietary use just as you have the right to create your own proprietary software and charge money for binaries as is often the case. And of course developers have the right to licence THEIR code under the conditions they want to, the most popular being GPL.

              Originally posted by zester View Post
              I already responded to why there not enforceable, see above.
              More nonsense from you. Of course they are enforcable, ending up in court doesn't mean they aren't enforcable. Ending up in court simply means that someone tries to evade the terms in the licence which then needs to be decided in a court of law, which it has been done numerous times and everytime GPL has been upheld.

              It's not about this particular licence per se, but about the author/owner of code being able to set conditions for using that code, and both of the extra GPLv3 clauses (anti-tivoization and patent grant) are legally enforcable, which again is why companies who wants to be able to sue other companies over software patents (like Apple) refuses to ship GPLv3 licenced code, since if that code contains an implementation of something they've patented then they are granting everyone who downloads this GPLv3 licenced code the right to freely use said software patent.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by zester View Post
                Because they entitle them selfs to rights and privileges, that only a judge in a court of law can grant. And different parts of the world have different laws in regards. In the US, litigation operates on the state level and each state is different.

                You really can't get any more specific than that. The GPL3 and its tivo/patent clauses might be successful in one state only to be
                deemed invalid in the next.
                Hmmm, I don't think so. It is an agreement. It's pretty much the same as EULAs, in that regard, or at least that's how I understand it. Also, if that's so, then I'd need an explanation on why several companies avoid GPLv3 software like the plague. What for, if the difference between that and the GPLv2 is mostly on clauses which are legally void.

                Originally posted by zester View Post
                Ahhh I see, where your thinking is. We are looking at "control" from different view points.
                That's almost certainly the case. Still, I'd like to understand how you see it.

                Originally posted by zester View Post
                Sorry, I was feeling attacked while trying defend my views, not saying that was coming from you. I just lashed out.
                No offense taken, then.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                  Hmmm, I don't think so. It is an agreement. It's pretty much the same as EULAs, in that regard, or at least that's how I understand it. Also, if that's so, then I'd need an explanation on why several companies avoid GPLv3 software like the plague. What for, if the difference between that and the GPLv2 is mostly on clauses which are legally void.
                  You should inspect Autodesk's EULA. A determine for your self if its legal in your country/state.

                  The Blender Foundation took a close look at Maya’s “End User License Agreement” (EULA) and found some
                  interesting things. Did you know, for example, that Autodesk gives themselves the right to inspect your system,
                  facilities and records?

                  Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                  That's almost certainly the case. Still, I'd like to understand how you see it.
                  I view software in the same way as I view math or physics, I don't see it as something anyone can or should be able to control "Restrict another persons use". My personal views come from a time when the FSF first started fighting software patents. The argument was/is that a program is just an abstract mathematical representation and there for isn't patent-able.

                  Over time my way of thinking evolved, and I came to the conclusion that all software belongs to everyone, as ideas are formed
                  by the collective thoughts of all. Our brains will then re-interpret those suggestions and ideas and new ideas are formed. But no one person is or can be responsible for any one idea.

                  Not long after in protest I started refusing to release my software with a license. And I started getting questions as to what License my software was under. Naturally I informed those who asked, that the software didn't have a license and was free to all. That was incorrectly interpreted by some and they assumed the software was licensed PD, but that was wrong PD is a License and my code had no License.

                  "I" had "incorrectly assumed" that it was possible to release my own content without a License. Apparently that concept doesn't actually exist as all things are by default Licensed in some way, in the US that default License is PD.

                  After discussing this with the Freedom Law Center, I was convinced by some rather smart people that the PD is a dangerous model to let my software fall under. As there is no guarantee, that code is actually in the PD and not some insane predatory License that exist for the sole purpose of suing people for copyright infringement. And they encouraged me to use the GPL.

                  I had explained to the Freedom Law Center that the GPL was not an option as it would unintentionally cause me to violate my own morals (it gives me control of something I don't believe is mine to control), because for good or bad my belief is that no one person or license should be able to restrict another users rights in any way shape or form to use something that the collective mind had created.

                  They understood my predicament and I had decided to use the BSD license by default, there for I wouldn't restrict the rights of "Proprietary Software" and "OSS Developers" could operate under the GPL and I wouldn't be restricting there rights.

                  Sooo in short I view the ownership and control of software by anyone or thing as a bad thing. I consider the GPL,LGPL,PD,BSD,MIT, ... to all be
                  bad with Proprietary Software being the worst..

                  PD isn't Safe, The GPL is to restrictive. The BSD is bad to but its less bad that the other two.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by zester View Post
                    You should inspect Autodesk's EULA. A determine for your self if its legal in your country/state.
                    I don't think they are giving them the right themselves. They state in the contract you agree in giving them the right, so you are giving them such right. If that's something you can give others or not or not legally, I don't know, but you are the one doing so according to EULAs. You state you agree in giving them the rights in it in the moment you choose to use, install, or whatever other condition.

                    I view software in the same way as I view math or physics, I don't see it as something anyone can or should be able to control "Restrict another persons use". My personal views come from a time when the FSF first started fighting software patents. The argument was/is that a program is just an abstract mathematical representation and there for isn't patent-able.

                    Over time my way of thinking evolved, and I came to the conclusion that all software belongs to everyone, as ideas are formed
                    by the collective thoughts of all. Our brains will then re-interpret those suggestions and ideas and new ideas are formed. But no one person is or can be responsible for any one idea.

                    Not long after in protest I started refusing to release my software with a license. And I started getting questions as to what License my software was under. Naturally I informed those who asked, that the software didn't have a license and was free to all. That was incorrectly interpreted by some and they assumed the software was licensed PD, but that was wrong PD is a License and my code had no License.

                    "I" had "incorrectly assumed" that it was possible to release my own content without a License. Apparently that concept doesn't actually exist as all things are by default Licensed in some way, in the US that default License is PD.

                    After discussing this with the Freedom Law Center, I was convinced by some rather smart people that the PD is a dangerous model to let my software fall under. As there is no guarantee, that code is actually in the PD and not some insane predatory License that exist for the sole purpose of suing people for copyright infringement. And they encouraged me to use the GPL.

                    I had explained to the Freedom Law Center that the GPL was not an option as it would unintentionally cause me to violate my own morals (it gives me control of something I don't believe is mine to control), because for good or bad my belief is that no one person or license should be able to restrict another users rights in any way shape or form to use something that the collective mind had created.

                    They understood my predicament and I had decided to use the BSD license by default, there for I wouldn't restrict the rights of "Proprietary Software" and "OSS Developers" could operate under the GPL and I wouldn't be restricting there rights.

                    Sooo in short I view the ownership and control of software by anyone or thing as a bad thing. I consider the GPL,LGPL,PD,BSD,MIT, ... to all be
                    bad with Proprietary Software being the worst..

                    PD isn't Safe, The GPL is to restrictive. The BSD is bad to but its less bad that the other two.
                    That's a valid view, IMO, but it can enter a loop of reasoning (as most things in life). You could say it is not your right to restrict, and that's consistent with your moral, but then the GPL tries to stop other people who haven't got that right either by that moral from doing such a thing. ALTHOUGH, if you add another personal ethic of mine which is not imposing my own beliefs into other people, you then get to BSD being the most correct license type, as you don't impose restrictions in something that doesn't belong to you but doesn't force people using it to apply the same ethics. Anyway, there is a license even less restrictive, not mandating to put the copyright notice, although I'm not sure if that's near PD in safety, which is the WTFL (seriously, that's the name).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                      I don't think they are giving them the right themselves. They state in the contract you agree in giving them the right, so you are giving them such right. If that's something you can give others or not or not legally, I don't know, but you are the one doing so according to EULAs. You state you agree in giving them the rights in it in the moment you choose to use, install, or whatever other condition.
                      I will have to find, that topic on Blender and link it here, as there are some people from differant countrys that pointout how and why that part of the Autodesk EULA is invalad in there countrys(Federal Law). And that was the point I was trying to make. When I say no-teeth and un-enforcable, thats in referance to them not being ironclad. There a crap shoot. Thats also why some companys will avoid GPL3 code like the plague as know one really knows when and how they will or won't be valid, same as the Autodesk EULA.


                      Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                      That's a valid view, IMO, but it can enter a loop of reasoning (as most things in life). You could say it is not your right to restrict, and that's consistent with your moral, but then the GPL tries to stop other people who haven't got that right either by that moral from doing such a thing. ALTHOUGH, if you add another personal ethic of mine which is not imposing my own beliefs into other people, you then get to BSD being the most correct license type, as you don't impose restrictions in something that doesn't belong to you but doesn't force people using it to apply the same ethics. Anyway, there is a license even less restrictive, not mandating to put the copyright notice, although I'm not sure if that's near PD in safety, which is the WTFL (seriously, that's the name).
                      Loop of reasoning is an understatment, I tried to explaning my interpretation of "reality" and "good and evil" to a priest one time and he called me insane and splashed me with holy water. If I could go back in time I would tell my self to accept thing for what they are and never ask questions, because "Ignorance really is Bliss".

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by zester View Post
                        You all can have BSD Libc and Glibc, I am going to stick with Musl Libc.
                        Alpine Linux is switching to musl as well.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X