RMS transcript on GPLv3, Novell/MS, Tivo and more 255
H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "The 5th international GPLv3 conference was held in Tokyo last week. I've made and published a transcript of Stallman's talk where he described the latest on what GPLv3 will do about the MS/Novell deal, Treacherous Computing, patents, Tivo, and the other changes to the licence. While I was at it, I made a transcript of my talk from the next day where I tried to fill in some info that Richard didn't mention."
Re:Very Easy... (Score:5, Interesting)
From his Wikipedia article:
Stallman maintains no permanent residence outside his office at MIT's CSAIL Lab,[28] describing himself as a "squatter" on campus.[29] He owns neither an automobile, common in pedestrian-friendly Cambridge, nor a cell phone, having stated his refusal to own a device with proprietary software.[28] Because his "research affiliate" position at MIT is unpaid,[30] he supports himself financially with speaker fees and prize money from awards he has won.
Free Systems (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that actually true? I don't use any non-free software. I know other people who don't, and other people who do. I know people who use mostly non-free systems. But what about the percentages? Time for a Slashdot poll?
How free is your software?
- Mostly free (some proprietary)
- Completely free
- Mostly proprietary (some free)
- Completely proprietary
- CowboyNeal hasn't written an OS yet
PS. The first part of the statement (There are two basically free operating systems: GNU/Linux and BSD) isn't right, there are more than two. Syllable, Haiku, ReactOS, FreeDOS,
Re:RMS is always right. Mod parent up. (Score:3, Interesting)
Stallman is fighting back. Even if you think he's over the top, a free software fundamentalist who has gone too far in his preaching, you should still listen to him. He's talking a lot of sense, on behalf of you.
I do think he's over the top (GNU/Linux? C'mon....) but reading this transcript has given me more respect for him. His opinions on 'Tivoisation' are quite interesting and probably my opinion and where I stand on the issue.
Ciarán O'Riordan's thoughts about the Linux developers needing to track everybody down and get ready for a license change are also well thought out. Even if they don't go to V3 they still need to be able to change licenses in the event that V2 is ever held to be unenforceable. It'll be a mess but it sounds like it's worth doing anyway.
Re:Tivoisation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there such a concept within contract law? If a contract participate violates the spirit of the contract but not the letter, can that be used as a basis for a contract dispute? And if so, could there be a favorable judgement?
I guess I have to say no, there is no such concept within contract law, or MS and SCO would be sued into oblivion. Hey wait...
Re:Tivoisation? (Score:3, Interesting)
And, hence, the need for GPLv3. As these abuses of the GPL were not foreseen, there was never an opportunity to negotiate.
And while Tivo may or may not win a challenge that they violated the spirit of the GPL, just the publicity of such a challenge may be enough to have them change their ways.
I, too, am torn in regard to Tivo's actions. On one hand, they certainly make a great use of GPL software, demonstrating to the entire world that GPL is better than good enough.
On the other hand, making sure that you can't actually change the GPL code on their platform is reprehensible. I really don't believe Tivo cares if you hack their product (I have, of course. It can be done.) My take is that as long as Tivo get's their $12.95 a month, they couldn't care less what you do. But the real kicker is that Tivo is making these accomodations on behalf of the content industry, who just can't make up their mind if Tivo is good for them or not.
There is an unsubstantiated rumor going around that Tivo's Home Media software (that lets you store Tivo content on your PC) actually looks for and disables software that is known to be effective for removing Tivo DRM from Tivo media files. Now if that turns out to be the case, it really puts a razor's edge to the whole "Treacherous Computing" idiom!
Sun (Score:1, Interesting)
And sorry, Suse guys, but facts are facts, your parent company is the suxors, they have proven it. There is nothing ambiguous about ballmers statements -a clear threat- or the original "workaround" comment. Their 'clarification" is spin and damage control. It's time to admit reality and move on if you really care about the long term viability of free software and having the ability to use your machines as you see fit.
Re:RMS is always right. Mod parent up. (Score:3, Interesting)
Then why aren't we currently holding users civilly liable for damages inflicted by their poorly configured machine? Maybe we should be.