Linux Developers Asked To Distance Themselves From RMS

[XorEaxEax]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[mrugiero]

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.

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.

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.

[zester]

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?

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.

[mrugiero]

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).

[zester]

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.

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".

[ncopa]

You all can have BSD Libc and Glibc, I am going to stick with Musl Libc.

Alpine Linux is switching to musl as well.