RMS transcript on GPLv3, Novell/MS, Tivo and more

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."

RMS is always right.

He might sometimes tend to "overkill"..

But I deeply admire that since I (finally) understood that overkill is necessary to avoid doing things twice.

Re:RMS is always right. Mod parent up.

The things that matter to Stallman at one moment in time will only become really important to the rest of us in 10 years or so.

Right now, software patents aren't being used against free software in any serious way, and DRM problems are localised to a few specific types of software. But that's all going to change with "trusted computing" and the inevitable war that corporations are going to wage against people who want to use free software on their machines.

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.

Re:

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?

Re:

Changing the licence would require much more than finding all the contributors. It would require one of two extra things:

1) Everyone agreeing to a particular licence at the same time
2) Everyone agreeing to give someone (Linus? FSF?) the copyright to their

Re:RMS is always right. Mod parent up.

Changing the [Linux] licence ... would require one of two extra things:

1) Everyone agreeing to a particular licence at the same time
2) Everyone agreeing to give someone (Linus? FSF?) the copyright to their submissions.

It's not really that hard. I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of the code was written by 20% of the contributors. Plus, some of the code in Linux is already GPLv3-compatible, since it's either taken from the BSDs, or it's licenced under GPLv2-or-later. Additionally, older code tends to be replaced over time. If a switch to GPLv3 became popular among today's kernel developers, and Linus imposed a policy of only accepting GPLv2-and-GPLv3-compatible patches, then I suspect that in 5 years, it would be fairly simple to replace the little bit of GPLv3-incompatible code that remains, and drop GPLv2 compatibility.

It could probably also be done in less time and/or without Linus' cooperation, but with substantially more work required.

Would it be a pain? Yes, but I'm very skeptical that it's the impossible task that you claim it to be.

Re:RMS is always right. Mod parent up.

That's right... many of the people commenting on his views of DRM simply haven't thought through the real implications. They think that DRM is about stopping some kids from copying music and video.

DRM is about forcing you to run particular EXACT code, and either not running at all or refusing to talk to you if you are not. This also happens to be the essence of DRM too... so it's a happy coincidence for the pro-DRMer within the technology companies.

Treacherous Computing is hardware that is meant to allow person X to set their hardware up to refuse to run (or not cage) software that is not digitally signed by them. As you can imagine, this COULD be extremely valuable for security. HOWEVER, the collection of companies making up the Trusted Computing Group (most of the tech companies) decided that the capability to TRUST should be reserved for them. You do not get to override it. This "trust" (only running approved code) starts with the BIOS, moves up to the kernel and in stuff like Vista it then moves into the media subsystem. In a few years, it will move into applications like web browsers, or word processors. Not running Microsoft Word? No you can't open that document, sorry. Add into this nasty mix, the ability of Trusted Computing hardware to execute code IN SECRET, and you have a control freak's wet dream. Not only can you not change what your computer does, you cannot even know what it is up to. The instructions are/can be encrypted.

Imagine it this way: a prison is very useful for keeping criminals in. It's not so good if YOU are the convict. In trusted computing as it is formulated today, YOU ARE THE CONVICT. You do not have the keys. Don't let them treat you like criminals. Demand the right to control your own PC -- you paid for it.

Trusted Computing is a political issue because it is a massive power grab by the technology companies. People may think Stallman is over-reacting, but I assure you that he is not. Look into the implications properly.

Re:RMS is always right. Mod parent up.

You know what? Treacherous Computing could be "fixed" by the addition of one thing: an "owner override." In other words, a mechanism to allow the owner of the machine to maintain control by having the ability to instruct the TPM to lie on his behalf. It would still allow all the nice "securing the critical systems" applications you mention, while making it useless for the totalitarian things like DRM.

So, does the specification for Treacherous Computing include an owner override? NO! Why? Because the purpose of it is not for your noble cause of "securing critical systems," but for enforcing DRM. And that's why it's evil.

Re:

No, you wouldn't. The owner of the machine is the owner of the machine, and that's it. There's nothing else to consider.

Then why aren't we currently holding users civilly liable for damages inflicted by their poorly configured machine? Maybe we should be.

Re:RMS is always right. Mod parent up.

To be honest with you, I don't have a problem with taking power away in principle, for the same reason that I think it's a good idea that drivers have licenses. You can't have a secure network that relies only on the good will and competence of the users.

No, you don't understand. Treacherous Computing takes away power from you, the administrator (or owner) as well! The users won't be root, but neither will you. Microsoft will be root.

Let's use an analogy: say you're renting a house. Is it reasonable for the landlord to control the keys? I'd say yes, and I think you'd agree. Now, imagine that you own a house. Is it reasonable for the builder to control the keys? I'd say no. Do you agree?

The "cure" proposal

There was a bit in there about a way of handling GPL violators who want to be able to redistribute again. According to Stallman, this is because when you redistribute without following the terms of the GPL, you lose any further right you have to distribute it, even if you comply with the GPL later on. In the article, he says he's not sure where the idea originated, but I suspect it's somewhere in the KDE camp, as this is where the idea that you need "forgiveness" from the copyright holder was first seen [linuxtoday.com]. The "cure" proposal would be a way of granting that forgiveness automatically.

Re:

Interesting link, but it still comes across as more of Stallman's 'my way or the highway' attitude about free software. And he's rightfully entitled to act that way.

I'm just curious if the man has ever said anything good about ANY software license other t

Re:The "cure" proposal

Yup - several times in that articles in fact. The Mozilla license, the second BSD-license, the Apache license and the Eclipse license are all recommended or commended for various reasons.

It appears GPLv3 is trying to pull the best bits from other licenses into as generally applicable license as possible, rather than being specific to one software program. I doubt anyone will ever agree on how well it succeeds, but it's a good idea to try, I feel.

Re:

Ah, missed that -- only had time to give it a quick look-through.

Mea Culpa.

Treacherous Computing

a conspiracy of companies to restrict the public - to restrict the public's access to technology. Such conspiracies ought to be a crime. The executives of those companies should be tried, and if convicted, sent to prison for conspiring to restrict the public's access to technology. However, that sort of policy would have required leaders that believe in government of the people, by the people, for the people. What we have today is government of the people, by the flunkies, for the corporations.

For a thought experiment, it would be fun to force RMS to run a company producing some hardware for a while.
There would need to be an incentive, say, the threat of being forced to use vi on Windows, or no technology at all, if he didn't dedicate himself sincerely to protecting shareholder value or expanding the market for the product.
Because, while I find myself admiring and agreeing with RMS quite often, I also feel that he fails to appreciate the merits of any opposing viewpoints. Experience beyond his catbird seat as chief agitator of the FSF might temper the fellow nicely.

Re:Treacherous Computing

In the quote given, RMS isn't critizing the companies. He is critizing the government. So yes, companines should try to maximize share holder value. But the government should protect the "people" since that is how they represent. Of course, it is us people that need to keep the government in line. So, I think he is smart enough to view his critism as being directed at people like me--those how don't vote. :-)

Re:

I agree completely, except that I think he should be punished by using emacs on Windows.

Re:

For a thought experiment, it would be fun to force RMS to run a company producing some hardware for a while.

Chaintech - old motherboards are not supported. No video drivers for builtin 7AIV S3 ProSavage video card. Last VIA KM133 drivers cause black sc

Re:

Sir, you missed my point entirely.
I've had my share of scanners "go brick" because the driver fell out of currency.
The point is that the demonization of companies would have more weight if, to pick from your list, RMS had actual executive experience runn

Re:Assumption

I am most definitely not a lawyer, but I'll bite on this one anyway.

The whole "protect shareholder value" bit is vastly over-rated by the general run of small investors as a legal excuse. Name a successful suit by shareholders against a corporate management that didn't do something to maximize profits because it was unethical or illegal. The majority of shareholder suits lose, and that includes more vaguely reasonable ones such as the Disney severance pay to Eisner lawsuit.
I just did a simple Google lookabout for currently as yet unsettled shareholder lawsuits. Nothing fancy, just typed in "Shareholder lawsuits", and then looked to see if the case appeared still in process. There were none mentioned on the first four pages (which is where I quit) that did not involve the board having allegedly either restated earnings and projected profits (always with a big decline in projected earnings) or incurred SEC fines. There's not a single one I could find this way that is even about a board simply having picked a bad business approach, so long as they did so openly, let alone one about not having entered any ethically 'gray' areas that could have led to profits. There are no shareholder lawsuits over such decisions as not laying off personnel in a decline, not selling non-exportable tech to nations on prohibited lists or other such actions revealed (at least in this search) either. I've heard of both such cases before, and am actually surprised that I couldn't find such a gase in the quick search. Still, I think this says something useful about how uncommon such cases are, at least.
In many states, the only way a court will even proceed with any shareholder lawsuit is if there is a SEC related decision first, and in some states, these decisions have to result in fines of various minimum values. In such cases, violating the law to maximize profits is the only way to become vulnerable to lawsuits over shareholder profits. That's right, in many cases, you have to break the law in an attempt to increase profits before you can be sued for the attempt failing! There, boards that use this as an excuse are saying, in effect, they had to give in before a threat that only becomes a threat if they give in! Amazing!

In over half of lawsuits of this general type, the shareholders sueing didn't do the most basic steps required before the court would even hear the case. For one example, many consistently failed to either try to get the board of directors to act on complaints before resorting to lawsuits, or to show the board was in some way biased or not sufficiently disinterested before proceeding to litigation. Of lawsuits that make it past such hurdles, most of the remainder failed automatically when the petitioner in effect asked the court to ignore that a violation of criminal law would be required for the board of directors to be in civil compliance. This frequently resulted in the suit being dismissed with prejudice.
A few years ago, a major shareholder in the pharma industry sued over just such an issue, claiming a corporation should have violated U.S. law by bribing Chinese (PRC) officials, since the fines would have been less than the profits. The arguements advanced got his lawyer disbarred, his own LLC dissolved and him convicted of racketeering so he could never form another one (at least in most jurisdictions).
That's doubtless an extreme case, but it shows the real problem here. Some people will sue over absurd, totally meritless claims, and concoct the most bizarre legal justifications. Some people will even go to civil court and argue their own case in such a way as to make it abundantly clear they are committing criminal acts, all the while thinking they are going to win big bucks. Some people will do the equivalent of shooting their parents and then absolutely demanding that the judge must show them mercy because they are an orphan.

Tivoisation?

I always wondered how Tivo could use GPL'ed software that technically didn't violate the license but certainly tramples all over the spirit of it. If RMS feels so strongly about it, why didn't he (or anyone else, for that matter) go after Tivo?

Re:

Tivo distributes hardware capable of running the Linux kernel. Like the Xbox, it is hardware sold below cost in order to promote other services. If Tivo didn't restrict what kernel could be run to those signed by Tivo, people would buy the Tivo box, instal

Re:Tivoisation?

I understand that Tivo would like to make money on their investment. If you are suggesting that they should be permitted to misuse GPL software in that pursuit, I would have to disagree with you. If Tivo doesn't like the idea of people running whatever kernel they want on their hardware, let them write their own kernel and not subvert GNU/Linux. (Like that would stop experimenters...)

Disclaimer: I own two Tivos and a home-built MythTV box.

Re:

How about when the argument is reversed?

The Linux kernel developers distribute a kernel capable of running on many platforms and which may be easily ported to others. Like many Free Software projects, it is software provided under the GPL. If the kernel

Re:Tivoisation?

If Tivo did not use GPL Linux then they would have to develop their own operating system to run on their hardware, or buy one from someone else. They have chosen to use Linux because it is cheaper for them to do so and because it gives them an edge in a competitive market.

The whole point of the GPL - see the printer driver story [blogspot.com] - is that end-users should be able to modify AND USE software released under the license. The deal is "if you use this software in your product, you're expected to give users that right.

Tivo have taken advantage of the benefits of Linux and found a legal loop-hole with which to weasel out of their responsibilities over the code. The cost of using GPL software on your hardware offerings is that users SHOULD be able to replace it on the hardware, regardless of how you feel about that. The Xbox is irrelevant in this case - it's fair enough that Microsoft deny Linux installations on their hardware, because they haven't benefited from the GPL in the first place.

The sum of the software I've released publicly amounts to a few Bash scripts, but if I were a Linux kernel developer who had purchased a Tivo I would be LIVID that my work had been used in this way, preventing me from modifying & using my own code, now resold to me installed on hardware I'd PAID good money for!!

Sure, the GPL v2 permits Tivo to restrict what kernel can be run on their hardware, but it's an unforeseen loophole - certainly against the original spirit of the GPL - and the contract should be changed.

Stroller.

Re:

Gee, thanks. Now that you've cleared that up, let me restate my question. There is a concept within criminal law that allows for criminal prosecution of a defendant even if he/she is technically not in violation of the written law. The example I hear ab

Re:

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?

My understanding is that (under US law, anyway -- you don't say where you and your pot are) if you draft a contract, you'r

Re:

My understanding is that (under US law, anyway -- you don't say where you and your pot are) if you draft a contract, you're expected to address and clarify all your own concerns. Courts take a dim view of your discovering new subtleties or "violations of s

Free Systems

``There are two basically free operating systems: GNU/Linux and BSD. Unfortunately, nearly all the versions that people use include non-free software, but basically they are free systems.''

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:

Well, I have a Flash player installed, so it's not entirely free. And doesn't mplayer include proprietary libraries? And depending on how your definitions are, is any mp3 player free? I think not. Also, nVidia drivers on one box, ATI drivers on another...

Re:

From your listed email address, you seem to be in the Netherlands. MP3 codecs were legal for you to use and redistribute, last I checked...

Re:

Well, if you consider that even the kernel provided by Debian includes non-free firmware, and those few distros that satisfy RMS's free standards are currently marginal (Utoto and Gnewsense), I'd guess most users of GNU/Linux are in fact using mostly free

Re:

I think his point is that if you look at many of the Linux distributions, most include some software that's covered by a license other than ones that RMS would consider "Free." Recall that RMS distinguishes "Free" and "Open Source" software. So, if your

Re:

While it would be nice to do a poll, I wonder how many people even realise if they are using some proprietary wireless or graphics card driver?

These days distros can install them automatically. (not a move I'm against. In fact I voted for it (successfully

Re:

Well, I was going to ignore your trolling, but seeing that you got modded up, I feel forced to reply and correct the misinformation you're spreading.

``He was talking about usable operating system.''

No, he wasn't. At least, it doesn't say so in TFA.

``How ma

Do It Right the First Time (TM)

``The basic idea of GPL version 3 is unchanged: to protect the four freedoms for all users, but the details have to adapt to today's circumstances.''

IANAL, but the software developer in me says: if you want to ensure that the four freedoms aren't taken awa

Re:

write something to the effect that "by distributing the Software under this License, the Copyright Holder grants you the right to exercise the Freedoms described herein

I'm afraid this violates the basic concept of "freedom" itself: you are free to do e

RMS

RMS is an excellent philosopher. He is the man we as programmers, nerds, and thinkers always should listen to very carefully. RMS has some bugs for sure but you can work around them.
I wonder sometimes how computing would be if he wouldn't be so hard fighting for digital freedom. GNU/Linux would not be here today. We would have to use mainly proprietary software. Even for your web applications it would be hard to get one free.

Even if you don't agree with RMS you always should at least read and listen what he has to say. And make arguments why you don't agree, don't simple say he is ******.

I'm very happy that once again he defends FREEDOM with GPL 3 and will make the company's who want to use copyleft software play nice with you and me. I hope we (nerds, programmers, it-users) will use GPL 3 and help RMS. It is after all in our best interest to do so.

Gosh, I thought RMS came off as totally reasonable

I can see already the RMS bashers are out in force, but after reading this article I thought it came off as very reasonable in comparison to many other speeches. Sure there was the 'GNU/linux' thing and a short rant against open source, but that is all old hat really.

All I can see here is him talking about cleaning up the language of the GPL so that is works better in various countries and making sure it's properly compatible with other important free licenses, like the Eclipse and Apache license. That's important stuff. Some stuff about making unclear things clear, and setting it up so that you can more easily and clearly add additional rights, such as if you are using the GPL for a font set you made you can explicitly say that documents using that font can be under any license the document creator wants (which isn't a problem really, but it makes some people nervous so you can be explicit if you want).

I'm not sure what all the ranting here about RMS not having to work for a living is coming from, except maybe jealously. He's making a decent living at doing what he loves, which I thought was what we all want. Good for him, I hope someday to have a career as successful and important as his.

Re:Very Easy...

You act like he's living the high life or something, he speaks that way because that is what he truly believes in. He supports himself with awards, speaker fees, but guess what, if he didn't take the positions he does he wouldn't win awards and no one would want to hear him speak. Consequently thats how he makes his living.

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.

Re:

Stallman maintains no permanent residence outside his office at MIT's CSAIL Lab,[28] describing himself as a "squatter" on campus.

That's his lifestyle choice. (Gross as it may be.) Even burger flippers can get a basement apartment.

Re:

Apparently, he doesn't own a mattress in which to put his money. I guess he had to go for second best.

Re:Very Easy...

Funny how his money in his bank and investment is invested and managed by proprietary software.Guess that is different somehow.

As is the software running the trains and planes he rides in, the software used by the government that collects his taxes, the software that... you get the idea. It's not possible for RMS to control the software used by other people, he can only control what software he uses and encourage others to use non-proprietary software. I suspect that if he could find a bank that used only Free Software, he'd use that bank. Actually, so would I... not out of opposition to proprietary software but because a bank that is so-enlightened would probably be a good choice in other ways. I'd expect them to have better security than most other banks, for example.

He'd fight at least twice as hard.

If you disagree with his stance when it comes to software licensing, you as a developer can easily avoid it: don't use software released under the GPL.

You're not forced to release your code under any of his licenses. If you're doing open source development

If you have to update your license reactionarily

... and without maintainer intervention, then maybe there is something wrong with the license. Or the code. Pick one.

Re:

Think about how you'd "upgrade" a license. Does it even make sense to release software saying "this is released under a license that is not yet written?" Let's just say that you do, but the new license contains features you disagree with. OK, so you fee

Re:

Serious question - will there be a GPLv3 fork of the Linux kernel? I know that Torvalds is dead against the idea, but an independent fork could be created if enough kernel contributors would agree to dual-licence their code.

Sure, unless there happen to be some major kernel contributors who wrote huge chunks of the kernel who are dead set against the idea, that could work.

I don't think you can call something a "fork" anymore when you have to rewrite the entire thing fro

Re:

It sounds like you're just uninformed, rather than trolling, so thought I'd correct you.

You have always been able to download any version of SUSE and distribute the GPLed components according to the GPL, for the last several versions the non-oss compone

Re:

Can you provide links to the download sites of the enterprise version?

Re:

http://www.novell.com/products/server/eval.html [novell.com] and http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/eval.html [novell.com] You get 60 days of free update subscriptions, or you can continue to use without support, or find someone else to support it. Also SUSE Linux/openSUSE is e

Re:What RMS should address

The root cause is that the GPL allows for the existence of non-free distros (Novell and RedHat are the ones I know)

Dude, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is provided as source at Red Hat's site. There is at least one large, easy to use distribution which takes those sources and rebuilds them after removing any Red Hat trademarked logos. That distribution is CentOS [centos.org]. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is completely free and GPL compliant. I recommend the contract-supported RHEL for customers that need that support, or need the certification on particular hardware for compliance issues and I recommend CentOS for customers that are comfortable dealing with (or paying me to deal with) a lot of extra issues.

Your statement that RHEL is non-free is thus completely false and demonstrably so.

Further RHEL, unlike SLES, is not complicated by an unclear patent-deal with Microsoft which seems to open Novell and Novell's customers to arcane legal threats due to implicit admission of the existence of infringement of Microsoft patents.

Add to this that Fedora Core is almost completely paid for by Red Hat in terms of infrastructure and developers and is also completely Free and I think that your comment if not a troll is unbelievably off-base.