Slashdot Log In
Linus Speaks Out On GPLv3
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jul 28, 2006 03:39 PM
from the that's-a-spicy-os-dev dept.
from the that's-a-spicy-os-dev dept.
Slagged writes to mention the word that Linus Torvalds isn't a fan of the new GPL draft. News.com has the story, and someone purporting to be Linus is causing a ruckus in the Groklaw thread on the subject. From the News.com article: "Say I'm a hardware manufacturer. I decide I love some particular piece of open-source software, but when I sell my hardware, I want to make sure it runs only one particular version of that software, because that's what I've validated. So I make my hardware check the cryptographic signature of the binary before I run it ... The GPLv3 doesn't seem to allow that, and in fact, most of the GPLv3 changes seem to be explicitly designed exactly to not allow the above kind of use, which I don't think it has any business doing."
Related Stories
[+]
News: GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft Released 242 comments
thppft! writes "The second discussion draft of the GNU General Public License version 3 was released, along with the first discussion draft of the GNU Lesser General Public License. Along with the text for the licenses , the GPLv3 website also includes an introduction by Eben Moglen along with markup changes to the rationale and the GPL itself."
[+]
News: Torvalds Critiques of GPLv3 and FSF Refuted 548 comments
j00bar writes "After Linus Torvalds' impassioned critiques of the second draft of GPLv3 and the community process the FSF has organized, Newsforge's Bruce Byfield discovered in conversations with the members of the GPLv3 committees that the committee members disagree; they believe not only has the FSF been responsive to the committees' feedback but also that the second draft includes some modifications in response to Torvalds' earlier criticisms." NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Linus is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
You are wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:You are wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Manufacturers should be able to go out of business in any method they desire.
Yup. GPLv3 is just plain dumb. It "addresses" a non-existent problem. People have a choice between DRM and non-DRM platforms and software. They can and do vote with their wallets.
And for those who are thinking "what about when there are no more non-drm devices, smarty-pants" - a GPLv3 won't address that issue; a swift kick to your political masters' behinds will.
The GPLv2 isn't broken. v3 doesn't pass the "smell test"; it won't "fix" anything, certainly not a situation such as a fully-drm'd, fully closed world.
Funny, the biggest push for DRM is from the so-called "free world." What sort of frigging time-warp alternate universe have we been living in for the last 6 years?
Parent
Re:You are wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Yup. GPLv3 is just plain dumb. It "addresses" a non-existent problem. People have a choice between DRM and non-DRM platforms and software. They can and do vote with their wallets.
Yes, but currently Free Software authors are subsidising the development of platforms that takes their Free code and locks it up so that it can't be modified or replaced. A lot of Free Software authors don't like this because it defeats the whole point of Free Software. That is the problem that it solves.
Parent
Re:You are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa, I think you missed the whole point of freedom :-)
If they apply drm to anything I write, then *that* particular binary isn't modifiable, but so what? They still have to provide the source on demand to anyone they give the binary to. That, after modification, the source can't be compiled to run on that particular hardware isn't an issue. Why? Because when it happens enough times, people will say f*ck this and buy hardware w/o the lock-in. Nothing worse than a horde of pissed-off customers.
The original source can still be modded and run fine on non-locked-out platforms.
Now I understand your point - that if they had to develop their own software, this would cost them extra. But any software that they developed themselves would be totally locked up, and there would be absolutely no leverage to ever convince them to go non-drm, or even a sort of "open drm", where the content might be locked, but not the app.
GPLv2 deals fine with these issues, by putting everything where it belongs - the push and shove of the marketplace. GPLv3, on the other hand, is both premature and heavy-handed. I'm sticking with v2, not just out of "political" reasons, but because I believe the marketplace works.
Take a look at what's happening. Microsoft, with all its monopoly power, is scared of linux, firefox, etc. The marketplace IS speaking out. Now, if someone insists on running Windows, this hasn't diminished me in any way - I haven't lost anything. If they want to run my code on a winbox instead of a linbox, how have I, or anyone else, lost out?
Same thing if they wanted to run it on a box that only allowed signed drm binaries. The only loser is the person who actually does this, then can't take advantage of any updates I do. Their loss, not mine. And its up to them to bear the cost of dumping their locked-in solution and switch.
The first freedom of free software is to run it on anything you want. That includes proprietary and/or closed systems. Now, personally, I think that's a dumb thing to do in most cases, since open systems have consistently better performance and higher-quality code, but that's my choice - my freedom.
What are people complaining about? Stuff like Tivo. Really, now - they're complaining about goddamn TV shows! Come on, there are more important things than that ... and if you don't like it, you can always make your own Freevio,or pay someone else to slap one toghether for you. Tivo didn't suddenly make Freevio impossible. What it DID do was give a target to shoot for.
Lets take a real-life example. I've got some code for an integrated back-end/front-end inventory and web site. If/when I get around to cleaning it up and gpl'ing it, if someone else takes it and mods it so that it runs on a particular piece of hardware, but that only mods "signed" by them will run on that hardware, all they've really done is limited their market to people stupid enough to buy closed hardware. Everyone else is enjoying the benefits of open code on open hardware for less. What's the problem? Its just like a lottery, a tax on stupidity, right :-)
Just this last week had a demonstration that eventually the market rights itself no matter what, when Microsoft's profits were down by a quarter, with the long-term outlook being more of the same. Closed systems just can't compete over the long term.
Another example. I wrote the beginning of a c2java converter, because java lacks a lot of the constructs I like. One of these days I'll finish it and put it out there for people to play with. What would be the incentive for someone to pay for a drm'd version, wehn they can have the original one, with source that they can modify and run, for free? There is none. Anyone trying to market such a setup would be doing the "web 0.0" dot-bomb thing.
Anyway, that's my take on it at this point. Let the free market handle it. There are too many of "us", and too few of "them", for us to fail unless we just stand there bent over with our hands around our ankles and buy any and all locked-in products. And if we do that, then we really do deserve the shafting we get.
Parent
Re:You are wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you missed the whole point of whose freedom is protected in the GPL.
"If they apply drm to anything I write"
If they want to apply DRM to anything I write, then they can damn well write the code themselves (or join the anti-IP fight). The GPL aint a free lunch, it's a guarantee of the freedoms for the recipients of the works and derivative works.
The application of DRM further creates a free rider problem where companies releasing under GPL risk finding themselves at a disadvantage versus those who dont; suddenly it's a one-way street.
"this would cost them extra"
Enough extra to make it unprofitable, or to give the open competition an advantage on price, a difference that is only going to grow in the future.
"Let the free market handle it."
Oh, please. The whole IP industry is nothing like a free market. The GPL restores free market competition for a small segment, but the business is full of protectionists trying to find ways to cheat even that.
Parent
Re:You are wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Linus' problem is that he never really agreed with these ideals. He originally licensed Linux as free for non-commerical use, but then released it under the GPL as a result of pressure from the community. Linus calls himself a pragmatist, which is a polite way of saying socially short-sighted. The FSF are often regarded as extremist idealists, but it is important to realise that they are actually the pragmatic ones. People like RMS created the foundation for purely pragmatic reasons; they had been burned by proprietary software, and they didn't want to be burned again. The easiest way of doing this is to ensure that there is a lot of Free Software about, and to try to create the economic conditions where Free Software is preferable to proprietary software. Linus' view is the equivalent of saying 'Why should we want to outlaw slavery? I'm not a slave.'
Parent
Re:You are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, here's the problem: you're missing the point of the GPL!
With BSD-style licenses, people do use them for the reason you stated: because they want other people to use their code. With the GPL, this is not the case. Instead, people release their software under the GPL because they want to preserve the user's control over his own computer.
Remember, Richard Stallman first created the GPL because his printer wasn't doing what he wanted, and the company refused to give him the source code so that he could fix it. If that happened now, with a printer that used GPL v.2 software but required a company-authorized version to run, the user would be just as screwed as if the code weren't Free Software at all. That's what the GPL is for, and that's why version 3 is needed!
Parent
Re:You are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
You know the story of rms' printer driver: he wanted to be able to modify the printer driver so it would bloody work right or work better. He couldn't do that, so he made GNU.
Now let's say the new rms. smr wants to fix his printer which is running embedded GPL software. Great, he thinks, I have the source code to this, so I can just fix the source and make my printer work/better.
Oops! The printer doesn't allow you to do this. This is an awful loophole that restricts your freedom to modify the program. You can modify it, but you might as well write it on on a piece of paper for all that's worth. What the user needs to be able to do is modify the software and use it to really have that freedom. GPLv3 protects this. Linus is really being a stubborn idiot about this.
Parent
Re:Linus is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, the whole point of open source is that you can change it and then run your changed version. That shouldn't be suddenly untrue at the arbitrary border between hardware and software. Hardware that uses approved versions of open source while actively preventing my version from running violates the spirit of the thing.
On the other hand, most of us have spent the last decade saying that its OK to use both open source and closed source software on the same machine. No one argues, for example, that you can't run GCC on top of a closed-source unix kernel even though it requires that kernel in order to run. Nor does anyone argue that the processor and other chips used by the kernel must be an open, free design.
The real problem, I think, is that RMS (via the FSF) is trying to force it down our throats as usual. He's a strange bird in that he really gets the freedom issue at one level while it flies totally over his head at another.
I think I'd put the DRM stuff in GPL3 as an optional component and see what happens. Let us authors decide whether we want it. If it works for us, it can be made permanant in GPLv4.
So I'd do something like this: Software released under the GPL MAY designate (on either a file-by-file or full release basis) that it can not be used by any device which by design actively prevents its legitimate owner from adjusting the software or data. Distribution of code so designated would be fully compatible with distribution of any other interlinked GPLv3 code with the sole exception that binary forms of the portions so designated may not be distributed for use with the restricted systems.
But then I'm a vi guy. Maybe if I'd written emacs I'd see it differently.
Parent
Re:Linus is wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Given the seller, the buyer, and the marketplace in between, the whole argument centers around control of the market.
On the one hand, you have the monopolists whow want to destroy the market,
And on the other are these on the other end who want to destroy the market, and usher in some purported paradise.
While I support the FSF, it is my hope that the tension will resolve in a way
Of Course That's the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
So, have a cryptographic check alongside a message or error light or something about running in unsupported mode, but don't completely cripple the hardware just because you want to avoid support headaches.
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't find this far-fetched in the slightest.
Parent
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:5, Informative)
GPLv2 dictated technical details that affected the next user's right to modify the software. For example, you couldn't link a modified GPL program with a closed source library, since that would hamper the ability to modify the software.
The spirit of the GPL has not changed. The "political goal" is to ensure that all downsteam users that wind up using GPL software have the same rights to modify and distribute the software that earlier users had. That has not changed. It's only closing a loophole that some companies can use to take away those rights without violating the letter of the GPL.
Parent
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:4, Informative)
Ahem. GPLv2 2c:
Parent
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is EXACTLY why the GPLv3 is necessary.
GNU all started with a Xerox printer and RMS's need to make it do things (report errors) that Xerox did not think of and did not want him to do.
Parent
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:4, Insightful)
This does have the potential to have some power, because the GNU tools are far and away the best set of basic unix tools. Most of the unices have adopted them by now. It is possible that when trusted computing comes, that this clause will simply kill off the use of the gnu tools (back to the last version using gplv2), but I doubt it. Additionally, if we ever manage to write a good killer app that lots of windows users use, and license it under gplv3, then when trusted computing comes, it might make people actually realize that it is not all sweetness and light (which will no doubt be how it is advertised.).
Also, there is some reasoning behind this promise to take the ball and go home. Presumable foremost in FSF's collective mind is that in a real sense, the type of hardware described would restrict freedom number 1 [emphasis mine] "The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this." [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html]. Additionally, there is a security reason. If you cannot ever update to a newer version, then any security holes that exist are frozen. Once those holes are discovered, everyone who is on a platform like this becomes a sitting duck until such time as both their hardware vendor releases a new signature set and they upgrade the software. This is also a personal/professional pride reason, because everyone who thinks they understand security will blame the software for their box getting owned, which will only be half right. Such incidents could give free software an undeserved reputation for insecurity.
Parent
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:3, Interesting)
As for Linus changing his perspective, he decided a long time ago not to blindly follow whatever license the FSF might cook up in the future and it looks like it was a wise move.
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes to software created by the OSS community the sun does set at our pleasure, which is the only software the GPLv3 is going to cover. If they want to lock their software using DRM based hardware they can use THEIR OWN software and not ours.
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:4, Informative)
The Open Source movement makes the case that source code leads to many eyes reducing bugs, stronger communities, and do other things that might be appealing to a business. Free Software on the other hand, according to Stallman and his GPL and FSF, has always been about ensuring the four freedoms for the software end user [gnu.org]. If you or Linus are not interested in these four freedoms, political or philosophical as they may be, then you should not license your software under the GPL "version 2 or any later version". Read up on it; make your choice. But don't complain when the FSF attempts to modify their license to maintain these freedoms, for the FSF has never claimed to do otherwise.
Parent
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously you were the asshole who took the call before I did & passed the previously frustrated and now angry customer on to me.
Seriously, in today's call
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:4, Interesting)
I find this seriously hard to believe. I've been hung up on by several call centers (Comcast, Cingular, CapitalOne, Dell, ahem. . .
I'm not rude, but if I _know_ I'm right on an issue I will be firm, and I will insist on speaking to someone else. I spent 2 hours on the phone with Cingular, discussing a point on my contract, until an administrator finally admitted that I was, indeed, correct, and issued my credit. I don't yell, I don't curse, but I won't accept what they say at face value when I know them to be incorrect. I don't see any reason to give into a big company because they feel they are correct, and on more than one occasion I've documented their errors only to be told by customer service representatives that it didn't matter. At one point, a certain cable company told me they couldn't help me, it didn't matter, I couldn't speak to anyone else, and that because my modem was an older modem (DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 compliant!) it supported a maximum of 1 Mbps. Then I was hung up on.
I've worked in call centers, so I know how much it sucks to have rude customers, but I'm starting to get the impression that their most definitely are abusive call center managers who do NOT respect their customers or employees, and these people permit employees to hang up on customers who are problematic.
Parent
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that the first phrase in bold allows what you describe: "implement all the same functionality" does not seem to prohibit a pop-up warning that the code is unsigned. However, the second phrase in bold says that modified versions must be indistinguishible from the original source from the point of view of an outside device. This seems to prohibit that same pop-up warning. So, it seems that Moglen & Stallman still have some clarifying work to do.
Parent
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why flight systems and medical devices are maintained by trained engineers who are governed by institutional policies that mandate the software changes that are permitted.
The only thing that Linus' is defending is manufacturer's right to prevent anyone from ever running anything they don't approve of. I personally want to be able to run anything I want on my hardware (that's what "my" means) and if the manufacturer has to tell a bunch of lame customers who've broken stuff that they don't get no support, I'm sure that the manufacturers won't have any trouble at all doing that.
I have managed support teams and had to deal personally with irate customers who were trying to run our product on WinME and the like, which was not supported. I had no trouble explaining to them clearly that they were not on a supported platform and they needed to upgrade their OS. It just isn't that hard, and honestly such users are a minisucle fraction of the total support burden.
Likewise, at this very moment, there is code running on computers in hospitals around the world that is secured only by hospital policy. I'm talking about systems in ORs and imaging suites, most of which...well, you don't want to know about the situtation with regard to passwords on such systems.
So far as I know, not one single accident has ever occured anywhere due to a user loading alternative code onto such a system. But I do know of cases where researchers have used their freedom to run alternative software to repurpose such system for all kinds of interesting and valuable experimental purposes.
Linus is proposing to allow hardware manufacturers to use software validation to prevent the owners of such hardware from being free to use it in novel ways.
There is no risk to the public due from the freedom to run alternate code. There is a very low added support burden from users running alternate code. There is currently a very good mechanism to prevent people from running alternate code in situations where it matters, starting with "voiding the warranty" and moving on up to "opening yourself to a lawsuit". Therefore there is no risk to anyone from hardware owners having the freedom to use their hardware as they see fit, and specious arguments invoking speculative situations with mission-critical hardware simply do not hold water.
Parent
Re:Of Course That's the Point (Score:3, Informative)
If GPL software developers would like to prevent manufacturers from taking away the rights of users to modify and redistribute the software, they they should use GPLv3. I suspect many will. Some won't. Notably, Linux will never be GPLv3, it can't be even if Linus wanted it to be. There's to
Closing OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Closing OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is the Free Software Foundation trying to tell hardware vendors what to do?
Re:Closing OSS (Score:3, Informative)
on the other hand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:on the other hand (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:on the other hand (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this a loss for the FSF? Manufacturers might not use GPL software, but this will come at a cost that will need to be passed onto consumers. Other manufacturers might continue to use GPL software with the added strings, and they might have a lower cost basis, and therefore a marketplace advantage.
All those manufacturers use GPL software right now because it works well and it is free-as-in-beer. Those two incentives will still remain, and having your product 80% done before you start on it with no licensing costs is an advantage that will not lightly be dismissed.
If you don't like DRM then don't buy or use devices that implement it.
Well, until there are no devices that do not implement it. In fact, the new GPL will help raise the costs of DRM hardware (due to the need to potentially license another OS and/or deal with a less mature product than GPL software) - which will help slow its adoption and make those devices that don't implement it a little more accessible.
In any case - there is nothing to fight over. If you don't like the new GPL don't use it - just don't expect much help from those who do use it or the ability to leverage their software.
Parent
not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not surprising that Linus isn't crazy about GPLv3, because he's not crazy about the GPL in general, in the way that RMS and the Free Software folks are. He's into Linux for the engineering, not to Free the software world.
I am curious about why he chose the GPL and not something BSD-ish for Linux.
Re:not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
http://hotwired.goo.ne.jp/matrix/9709/5_linus.htm
In other words, Linus likes the GPL for the actual reasons that it is a good license, not out of any kind of narrow-minded 'software ideology'.
Parent
Linus Doesn't Get It (Score:4, Interesting)
If GNU/Linux had started 20 years later than it did this wouldn't even be an issue. DRM would've killed it before it even got off the ground. Linus would just be the name of a Peanuts character.
Think damn it, think!
Re:Linus Doesn't Get It (Score:3, Insightful)
What utter bullshit. I disagree with him, but that doesn't make him any less relevant. If everytime RMS said something I disagreed with, and I called him "irrelevant" that would be stupid along the same lines.
It's akin to saying Jefferson isn't relevant anymore, because he's dead. So obviously we should ignore his views on the constitution.
Now there are companies involved, all of a sudden the original volunteers that built the community fr
Re:You're so wrong it's painful. (Score:4, Insightful)
Similarly, no hardware vendors are forced to use GPLv3 software. If they don't like it, they can find software with a different license, possibly GPLv2. The key thing is that the hardware vendors are not allowed to violate the license terms chosen by the software author.
For Linux it is completely irrelevant. Despite any opinions Linus might have on the matter, it is effectively impossible to get all of the owners of the copyright of any non-trivial amount of the Linux code to agree to a license change, so Linux will use GPLv2 for most of its code for the forseeable future.
Parent
Re:You're so wrong it's painful. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is happening, is that I'm saying that if you want to use *my* software on a DRM platform, *then* you have to hand out the keys or whatever else is needed. Which, for software I write, is exactly what I want. (Of course, I have trouble imagining how it would be relevant for things I write, but that's a different matter -- I don't write media players or kernels or other obvious targets).
As a software *author*, I lose nothing. As a user of other people's software, I lose out only if I'm trying to redistribute their copyrighted work in ways they don't want. And, in that case, too bad for me -- just like it's always been.
This license is about giving authors more choices, not less. And personally, this is an option I like.
Parent
GPL v3 will fail (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:GPL v3 will fail (Score:4, Informative)
Further, the entire GNU toolchain will become GPL v3, which is not insignificant. GCC likely will become GPL v3. Based on the comments I've been seeing so far, a lot of other developers feel the same way I do.
Parent
Re:GPL v3 will fail (Score:5, Interesting)
This leads to "trusted computing"---while this discussion is centered around `devices', it might find its way into computers. Imagine all the motherboard manufacturers being forced (by the paid off politicians?) to not allow you to run non-signed operating system. Obviously MS will get a signature, as well as major Linux distributions, but... What's the use of having the entire source for Linux, if you cannot compile and run your own version?
I see GPL3 as an extention and realization that hardware now a days is exactly like software. General purpose microcontrollers running some software is NOT a `device' in the same sense it was a few years back, it's a computer running software. Very few devices are `custom built'---most are just microcontrollers with software determining how the thing works and `what it is'. GPL3 essentially says hardware = software as far as licensing is concerned. You cannot close hardware if you use open software on it. I think it makes sense.
Anyone who disagrees with this isn't a consumer of hardware/software. They're hardware vendors looking to lock out users, while at the same time getting a free ride from open software.
Parent
here's a good example (Score:5, Insightful)
imagine a world where there's an open source electronic voting software package that everybody used... wouldn't you want the voting machine to be able to reject software that wasn't say verified by a voting auditing board and signed?
the same thing could be true of open source ATM software. would you want your ATM to whine like HAL having his memory yanked when malware was loaded onto it, or would you want it to refuse to run?
Benevolent Dictatorship... (Score:5, Interesting)
By my point of view a benevolent dictator is still a dictator.
We should thank Torvalds to keep the questioning open, otherwise it would be like Christian Church: the Pope speaks, the lambs obey.
The article also makes a very saddening statement: the GPL3 is basically written by the companies behind the FSF. The article cites that HP is pushing to have their own interests protected. Do you really think that other GPL-oriented companies (like IBM or Novell) will just stay and look or they will also try to drive the boat towards their coasts?
After all, FSF made just a favour to many commercial distributions (another case of uninterested philantrophism?), claryfying that if you have to fork a distro, you have to redistribute every single packet by yourself, instead of shipping only the relevant, modified ones like GPL says. GPL is too generalized and vague. You can't have a license that has hundreds of pages of "clarifications" continuosly swapped and rewritten to praise an actor or to damage another. Most of the clarifications are just more ambiguos or simply idiotic. Do you know that by FSF interpretation, subclassing or implementing an interface is considered a derivative work? That's makes impossible to use any object oriented library released over LGPL by the term of the license, they will be as plain and simple GPL licensed code. There's a lot of OOP libraries wrongly placed in the LGPL domain. Do you really think that their author bothered about the implications? They just followed the leader. For not good reason and without a clue. Why LGPL3 talks only about header files and libraries? Open source licenses should be technlogy neutral and C/C++ is not the only language out there. Sure our benevolent dictator may pretend that the other technologies are not there gut they will not fade away. Today IT rarely uses anything compiled aside core OS programs and it's hard to find a place for the delusional aims of a puppet in the hands of other non-Microsoft corporations.
Sure A guru's life is expensive and big corporations makes hefty donations. Let Stallman explain to us mortals why Microsoft has to be destroyed and IBM or HP are valiant partners whose interests are to be protected.
HP advanced pressures to make the GPL3 more friendly towards their PATENTS! The world got upside down or what?
Linus is off the mark (Score:4, Insightful)
The same is true with GPLed software: no, you are not as free as someone using MIT or BSD licensed software because you cannot go subterranean with the source code and your changes.
For those poor hardware manufacturers who are lusting after some GPL protected software I can see several options:
1. Forgo the GPLed software and get a closed-source alternative.
2. Contact the owners of the software and see if you can get the software under a more "friendly" license. For the Linux kernel that would be difficult if not impossible.
3. Embrace the GPL and move forward into a net freer world despite, like slave owners, you cannot use GPLed software in a closed system.
Now, arguably, somebody is going to point out that by taking the stance I've just outlined then I'm contributing to pressures to move *some* manufacturers away from using FL/OSS (e.g. GPLed) software. That may be true. But I'll take some loss of gadgets and gizmos, perhaps even large systems, to maintain the freedoms that the GPL and similar licenses try to ensure.
In the end I believe that the pressures to "go free" and to "let tinker" will eventually win out for all, including the manufacturer. Consider Id: do they get calls about user mods based on their game engines? Maybe a few, but the overwhelming positive results of user mods makes it a no-brainer: enable the mods.
As far as entertaining the example from the original post. I wouldn't waste too much mental energy on it. And if the blurb really came from Linus, then here's a message to Linus: get over it, the example you created may be short-term significant, but, if free software eventually is successful, long-term irrelevant.
The heart of the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Licenses like BSD/MIT have a view of freedom that is more like anarchy: the "do anything you want" style of so-called freedom (but at least give credit to who wrote the code). This stance doesn't actually create freedom because "anything you want to do" can also include taking freedom away from others. BSD people used to argue that you would still have freedom, only it's with the old code before the proprietary fork, etc. But DRM and other methods of preventing you from modifying and running software is not protected by BSD licensing. So, it is even more true today that BSD-like licensing in actuality has little to do with freedom and more to do with technological research without regard to the sustained openness that made studying that code possible.
Freedom must be preserved and encouraged in order to exist! It is not a spontaneous choice that can be made after neglecting its preservation. Once freedom is gone, once official mechanisms are in place to restrict you, you can't simply make a choice to be free again. When I think of the FSF, I believe they understand freedom as many others have realized throughout history...
"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free." - Clarence Darrow
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." -Goethe
"Liberty without learning is always in peril and learning without liberty is always in vain." - John F. Kennedy
"After I asked him what he meant, he replied that freedom consisted of the unimpeded right to get rich, to use his ability, no matter what the cost to others, to win advancement." - Norman Thomas
The more we are tempted by money to deprive others of freedom, the less freedom we all have in the end, and the less it's worth living in such a society even if you're rich. Don't worry about people crying about loss of profitability, etc. History has always shown that there will always be clever people that will find some way to make money, whether people are free or in chains.
Re:Emphasis on "purporting to be" (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hooray for Linus! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you realize that "trusted computing" generally means "distrust the USER/OWNER of the computer". I think what everyone is afraid of is losing control of THEIR computer to some government/corporate organization.
And yes, you have a point, it's not as bad as it may appear... if you're the one in control of what trust. Unfortunately, from the talk that's going around, it's likely users won't be in control (ie: hardware vendor ensures that any OS that runs on the box must be signed by some authority, etc.)---I franky cannot see how that benefits anyone but some corporation.
And slowly but surely this technology is getting here. Music players, etc., many of them already restrict their owners. In a few years, it's not unlikely this will happen to PCs.
Parent
I think you misunderstand the clause's purpose (Score:3, Interesting)
The GPLv3 as written does not forbid running software covered by it on a TPM system. What it says is that when a TPM platform vendor distributes GPLv3 software as binaries signed to run on their platform, they must not only pr