Linux Developers Asked To Distance Themselves From RMS

[zester]

I could inquire as to the definition of "easier" in this case but let's just say generally your statement isn't true as long it's only your own code you're trying to move. Nobody forces you to use a particular license for your code.

That statement is always true, from a BSD code base you can go strait into a GPL licensing model without having to sanitize your code base. Going from GPL to BSD is soooo much more difficult as you now have to rewrite the GPL portions otherwise there is no benefit to the new BSD code as it's usage still falls under GPL compliance.

We don't want control. We want to ensure nobody else has it (or come as close to ensuring it as possible anyway).

The GPL is all about control always has been, "We don't want control. We want to ensure nobody else has it" and you contradict your own statement.

[mrugiero]

The GPL is all about control always has been, "We don't want control. We want to ensure nobody else has it" and you contradict your own statement.

That's not a contradiction, you may well want nobody to have control over the software. The restrictions applied aim to that goal, although I'm not sure if that was the main motivation for them or it was a mere coincidence with some other goal. "You can not create closed source derivatives" imply "anyone can make the changes they want, as long as they don't create closed source derivatives either", so it avoids any possibility of someone actually controlling it. The copyright owners do have control over it, but that's something there is no way to overcome in any case. Copyright owners can agree to close their code, but this could be done even with liberal license anyway.
If you say it is about control, then you might tell us who is the one in control.

EDIT: The same goes to the anti-tivoization and anti-patents clauses. If you are obliged to share licenses for your relevant patents if you distribute or modify the software, effectively nobody can control it, nobody can ban you from make any modifications and release them.

[zester]

That's not a contradiction, you may well want nobody to have control over the software. The restrictions applied aim to that goal, although I'm not sure if that was the main motivation for them or it was a mere coincidence with some other goal. "You can not create closed source derivatives" imply "anyone can make the changes they want, as long as they don't create closed source derivatives either", so it avoids any possibility of someone actually controlling it. The copyright owners do have control over it, but that's something there is no way to overcome in any case. Copyright owners can agree to close their code, but this could be done even with liberal license anyway.
If you say it is about control, then you might tell us who is the one in control.

EDIT: The same goes to the anti-tivoization and anti-patents clauses. If you are obliged to share licenses for your relevant patents if you distribute or modify the software, effectively nobody can control it, nobody can ban you from make any modifications and release them.

Listen you two might be playing word games but I'm not. He just said "We don't want control. We want to ensure nobody else has it <-- That's CONTROL".

The GPL is all about control, you can deny it all you want but your lying to your self and others. I'm the only one being strait forward, you want control under your own conditions(GPL) this is how you do it.

Tivoization works both ways, and its far easier to move a code base forward BSD -> GPL than in the reverse direction. Keep in mind "Proprietary Software" makers fear the GPL and normally avoid it at all cost. You wan't to control a platform then you need to think outside the box.

But that's on you, I'm "DONE" with the Licensing Wars and Fanboyism, and apparently so is everyone else because GNU and FSF isn't very popular these days.

I was trying to help you for a possible future you might not like but then you all started being dick's.

[zester]

EDIT: The same goes to the anti-tivoization and anti-patents clauses. If you are obliged to share licenses for your relevant patents if you distribute or modify the software, effectively nobody can control it, nobody can ban you from make any modifications and release them.

The anti-tivoization and anti-patents clauses are a joke and have no teeth ... there unenforceable.

[mrugiero]

Listen you two might be playing word games but I'm not. He just said "We don't want control. We want to ensure nobody else has it <-- That's CONTROL".

The GPL is all about control, you can deny it all you want but your lying to your self and others. I'm the only one being strait forward, you want control under your own conditions(GPL) this is how you do it.

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.

I was trying to help you for a possible future you might not like but then you all started being dick's.

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.

[mrugiero]

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?

[XorEaxEax]

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.

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.

You wan't to control a platform then you need to think outside the box.

What the heck does this refer to?

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'.

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.

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.

[zester]

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.

[zester]

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"

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.

What the heck does this refer to?

Once again you didn't get it. See above.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[zester]

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.

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.