| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HungGarTiger
Apprentice
Joined: 04 Feb 2014
Posts: 180
Location: /nz/auckland
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| pjp wrote: | | cord wrote: | | Gentoo could be configured to be FSF-approved |
Speaking of, I was just reviewing what was installed on my system with GPL-3. It seems that cancer has metastasized, and is unavoidable. |
What's wrong with the GPL? I thought it was a well respected license, do you prefer the BSD one then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
GPL-2 isn't bad, its GPL-3 that's bad. Of course, bad being an individual opinion.
And, yes, I've always preferred a more free license such as BSD. I've mainly used Linux for career reasons. Of course, that only goes so far since I dumped personal use of RH as soon as possible (back in 2002).
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HungGarTiger
Apprentice
Joined: 04 Feb 2014
Posts: 180
Location: /nz/auckland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | GPL-2 isn't bad, its GPL-3 that's bad. Of course, bad being an individual opinion.
And, yes, I've always preferred a more free license such as BSD. I've mainly used Linux for career reasons. Of course, that only goes so far since I dumped personal use of RH as soon as possible (back in 2002). |
How interesting, thanks for that link. Linux is released under this license. I always though it was under GPL. Assuming Linus switched it when GPL3 was released. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're welcome (it was also easier than me trying to explain it).
The Linux kernel is GPL-2 (see FAQ #1).
Where did you see that it was a CC license?
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HungGarTiger
Apprentice
Joined: 04 Feb 2014
Posts: 180
Location: /nz/auckland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | You're welcome (it was also easier than me trying to explain it).
The Linux kernel is GPL-2 (see FAQ #1).
Where did you see that it was a CC license? |
its here on their about page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | I was just reviewing what was installed on my system with GPL-3. It seems that cancer has metastasized, and is unavoidable. |
*sigh* It's a "cancer" now? It used to be slandered as a "virus".
Forgive me for not chasing a youtube link to work out what your actual argument is. Perhaps you could summarise it in text, for actual discussion?
Kind regards,
steveL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| psycho wrote: | amazing. we can sit here with an entire operating system and complete set of copylefted applications (thanks to stallman's fsf) based on the gnu tools (largely thanks to stallman) and compiled using gcc (written by stallman), and complain that this freedom advocate who has basically handed us all this on a plate is "against freedom" because he asks us to continue sharing information rather than spreading code with sneaky licenses.
how is he limiting our freedom to advise us of these things? nobody is forcing us to use gnewsense, or stop using gentoo. on the other hand, if it weren't for stallman and his fsf, we wouldn't even have a gentoo to choose to use. stallman didn't just write the software with which we build linus's precious kernel and everything else, but he hacked the legal system in a way that made all this possible. "against freedom?", because he doesn't want to list our favorite distro among his favorites?
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! |
++ | Quote: | | bashing stallman and the fsf for their philosophy while reaping all the benefits of it, is like coming in here on a gentoo system and bashing gentoo. we're choosing to use this stuff, so we can either be happy with it or contribute to improving it. dissing the people who just served you a big free meal as "fundamentalists" or whatever seems just a tad ungrateful. |
Indeed.
Whining about a "refusal to endorse", from people who clearly only care about themselves, is beyond chutzpah; it's risible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HungGarTiger wrote: | | pjp wrote: | You're welcome (it was also easier than me trying to explain it).
The Linux kernel is GPL-2 (see FAQ #1).
Where did you see that it was a CC license? |
its here on their about page |
The site is released under the CC license, the kernel is GPL-2. It will stay at GPL-2 for a very, very long time (if not for as long as it exists or until a fork) due to code in the tree where the author cannot be contacted to determine if it can be re-licensed.
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cord
Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 344
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | Speaking of... |
Cancer? Interesting, what's then the ACCEPT_LICENSE variable in your system? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HungGarTiger wrote: | | pjp wrote: | You're welcome (it was also easier than me trying to explain it).
The Linux kernel is GPL-2 (see FAQ #1).
Where did you see that it was a CC license? |
its here on their about page |
Ah. I read that as likely meaning the website itself. Even if it isn't referring to the website itself, "Except where otherwise stated". The kernel is "otherwise stated" as being GPL-2.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | Forgive me for not chasing a youtube link to work out what your actual argument is. Perhaps you could summarise it in text, for actual discussion?
Kind regards,
steveL. |
It is less than 10 minutes, but I understand. If you like GPL-3, you should use it. No discussion need follow.
I do not like it, and prefer to not use it. To be clear, using software that is GPL-3 isn't the problem. But if I were to write something, it might be GPL-2, but definitely not GPL-3. To each their own.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cord wrote: | | what's then the ACCEPT_LICENSE variable in your system? |
I had a typo in ACCEPT_LICENSE which was -GPL3 (should have been -GPL-3). In a recent post to this thread, I included a list of installed packages requiring GPL-3. The packages are fairly critical. I'm not sure if there are alternatives.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HungGarTiger
Apprentice
Joined: 04 Feb 2014
Posts: 180
Location: /nz/auckland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | HungGarTiger wrote: | | pjp wrote: | You're welcome (it was also easier than me trying to explain it).
The Linux kernel is GPL-2 (see FAQ #1).
Where did you see that it was a CC license? |
its here on their about page |
Ah. I read that as likely meaning the website itself. Even if it isn't referring to the website itself, "Except where otherwise stated". The kernel is "otherwise stated" as being GPL-2. |
Yeah that's fair enough, I thought the kernel was released under GPL-2. I obviously misinterpreted that licensing statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I always thought of CC licenses as oriented toward the written word. Essays, books, poems, website content, etc. But the wikipedia page seem to include software, so I've no idea what the nuances are.
Ultimately, that's my issue with licenses. The more verbose and lawyerly they are, the worse they are IMO. I want to parse the meaning in seconds to a few minutes tops.
Words in some licenses: | Code: | 222 /usr/portage/licenses/BSD
163 /usr/portage/licenses/BSD-1
192 /usr/portage/licenses/BSD-2
252 /usr/portage/licenses/BSD-4
262 /usr/portage/licenses/BSD-with-attribution
6 /usr/portage/licenses/public-domain
79 /usr/portage/licenses/WTFPL-2
2968 /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-2
5644 /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-3
4186 /usr/portage/licenses/LGPL-2
1234 /usr/portage/licenses/LGPL-3 |
The longer they are, the more difficult it seems to be to interpret correctly.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | Forgive me for not chasing a youtube link to work out what your actual argument is. Perhaps you could summarise it in text, for actual discussion? |
| pjp wrote: | It is less than 10 minutes, but I understand. If you like GPL-3, you should use it. No discussion need follow.
I do not like it, and prefer to not use it. To be clear, using software that is GPL-3 isn't the problem. But if I were to write something, it might be GPL-2, but definitely not GPL-3. To each their own. |
Sure, I don't care what you use.
If you post a statement characterising the license as a "cancer", then it's entirely reasonable for others to ask what led you to be so vitriolic.
After all, the same has always been said of the original GPL, and subsequent versions, by commercial software-houses and their employees.
I am guessing you don't buy into that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | If you post a statement characterising the license as a "cancer", then it's entirely reasonable for others to ask what led you to be so vitriolic. |
The thread subject is an example. Gentoo allows users too much choice. The GPL-3 similarly removes more choice from users.
| steveL wrote: | After all, the same has always been said of the original GPL, and subsequent versions, by commercial software-houses and their employees.
I am guessing you don't buy into that? |
I think it was Ballmer, if not, I'm pretty sure it was someone from Microsoft who referred to it as a virus. Although having a negative connotation, I believe it is accurate. Laughter can be contagious, so maybe that has enough kumbaya. At any rate, the use of GPL spreads to things it touches. That sounds similar to a virus. Consider the cancerous description similarly with regards to GPLv3.
If you want nuance, then watch the video, but the GPLv3 allows for Tivoization. The project can then be forked to not allow Tivoization, but the original project no longer gets the changes from the fork. One of the original points of the GPL was to swap code back and forth, and GPLv3 violates that tenet, which I think is accurately described as being malignant. Sounds more like a comparison with cancer than a virus.
And just for clarification:
Malignancy is the tendency of a medical condition to become progressively worse. -- and -- Malignancy in cancers is characterized by anaplasia, invasiveness, and metastasis.
Metastasis is a pathogenic agent's spread from an initial or primary site to a different or secondary site within the host's body,[1] yet is typically spoken of as such spread by a cancerous tumor.
So, yeah. Malignancy seems to fit, as does invasiveness and metastasis. Obviously not exactly, since it is software.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
szatox
Advocate
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 3131
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If you want nuance, then watch the video, but the GPLv3 allows for Tivoization. The project can then be forked to not allow Tivoization, |
Does it? I thought that preventing tivoization was the main goal of v3, since tivoization basically means circumventing obligations placed by the authors on the vendors.
It's been a long time, do I miss something important here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The term commonly used is "toxic."
I acknowledge that the FSF essentially created an environment in which all free software can exist.
However that does not mean that all free software needs to follow what the FSF thinks is correct, and it also doesn't mean that the FSF's priorities should be the priorities of the users of free software.
The FSF occupies the leftmost position possible in software licensing, while companies like Microsoft crowd over to somewhere near the rightmost position.
The FSF has made the argument that all software must be FSF-approved or people should refuse to use it.
Microsoft has made pretty much the exact argument in reverse, that all software should be copyrighted and owned by somebody. In the small print, "somebody" turns out to be Microsoft.
Mathematically speaking, abs(FSF)==abs(Microsoft)
But if we look around, we find the Apache license, or the FreeBSD license (the part we can read, of course). These licenses offer more freedom than GPL-anything. They also don't require crazy loyalties from their users, and combinations of non-free software with free software of those licenses is pretty straightforward too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cord
Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 344
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | the GPLv3 allows for Tivoization |
| wikipedia wrote: | | One of the goals of GPL Version 3 is to prevent "tivoization". |
? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cord wrote: | | pjp wrote: | | the GPLv3 allows for Tivoization |
| wikipedia wrote: | | One of the goals of GPL Version 3 is to prevent "tivoization". |
? |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| For the record, I would never use a distro that the FSF endorsed. Way too many of my installs require commercial software or at least non-free software. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| szatox wrote: | | Quote: | | If you want nuance, then watch the video, but the GPLv3 allows for Tivoization. The project can then be forked to not allow Tivoization, |
Does it? I thought that preventing tivoization was the main goal of v3, since tivoization basically means circumventing obligations placed by the authors on the vendors.
It's been a long time, do I miss something important here? |
Maybe you can get Linus to clarify.
Given my earlier post: | Quote: | 2968 /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-2
5644 /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-3 |
I couldn't tell you what it permits. I spent a bit of time on FSF looking for clarification, but couldn't find anything which I thought was clear.
Maybe this clarifies it, and Tivoization is misunderstood because of obfuscation due to verbosity.
Aside from that, I did find it amusing that the FSF claims one goal of v3 was supposedly to simplify for easier understanding. I'm not sure what definition of simply they use which includes nearly doubling the words used in the license.
| 1clue wrote: | | The term commonly used is "toxic." |
That seems less accurate but not less vitriolic.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cord wrote: | | pjp wrote: | | the GPLv3 allows for Tivoization |
| wikipedia wrote: | | One of the goals of GPL Version 3 is to prevent "tivoization". |
? |
And at the same time it permits it.
There are many reasons that OEM's have to lock down what can be modified via software. The most obvious one is FCC & radio transmissions. A piece of hardware is sold against a certain EMC fingerprint and you as an end-user do not have a legal right to just pollute the airwaves ( US, EU, russian, china etc laws will have you in prison). You could interfere with other peoples spectrum which does include medical and aerospace. This is a matter of health and safety not some arbitrary right.
The 2nd one is to do with DRM. if a device wishes to access certain content, the content provider might wish measures are in place to protect their IPR. Now some may argue that the concept of IPR is wrong & honestly that is moot here because some organisation (lets say Disney) spent a little of their money to produce something to make more money & part of that money is to pay the people that facilitated in making said content. It does not matter what Stallman, the FSF or anyone's else's thinks about IPR except Disney and the end customer. If the hardware provider does not provide the required "protection" then they will not be permitted to access Disney's content. If an end-customer can't access Disney's content via a piece of hardware they have every right to go to an OEM that does. This is how iTunes and the iPod launched very successfully.
now I am sure people will argue that DRM is against freedom and they are free to not buy such pieces of hardware BUT they are not free to endanger other peoples lives and thus "Tivoization" is something that has to exist & the GPL-3 permits it. Yet the GPL-3 was created to stop this... how very odd 
Now Linus's objection with the GPL-3 is it is encroaching & bounding hardware (I agree with him) it attempts to stop user modification but at the same time permits it (see section 6 of the gpl-3 & I agree with him) BUT more worrying is once the work has been bound by the clause to permit exactly what Tivo was doing you can then fork from that base and no longer need to provide code back (I can't see this grandchild clause but if this is the case the GPL-3 is a real waste of time)
| Quote: | The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a
requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates
for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for
the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a
network may be denied when the modification itself materially and
adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and
protocols for communication across the network.
|
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R0b0t1
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 264
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Naib, you are wrong on both counts. Manufacturers may desire to enforce those things but they have no legal obligation to do so. As I have discussed at length elsewhere, they have no business doing the first, and people are free to avoid buying things which do the latter.
Holding equipment manufacturers liable for end-user transmission violations is like holding gun manufacturers liable for murder.
I am only posting again because that train of thought sets a very dangerous precedent. Why are you okay with other people taking your rights? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| R0b0t1 wrote: | Naib, you are wrong on both counts. Manufacturers may desire to enforce those things but they have no legal obligation to do so. As I have discussed at length elsewhere, they have no business doing the first, and people are free to avoid buying things which do the latter.
Holding equipment manufacturers liable for end-user transmission violations is like holding gun manufacturers liable for murder.
I am only posting again because that train of thought sets a very dangerous precedent. Why are you okay with other people taking your rights? |
I am not wrong actually. If you modify the transmission profile of a piece of equipment (or you construct your own), if you violate the spectrum you are liable. do you know how pacemakers work? do you know what happens if a piece of equipment bleeds into the ECG susceptibility range? do you know what happens if your transmission interferes with emergency service communication? do you know what happens if contower communications are distrupted?
just because you don't believe it doesn't change it
http://wsn.cse.wustl.edu/images/9/93/Electronmagenetic_Interf.pdf
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/62991/amateur-terms.pdf
| Quote: | A person authorised by Ofcom may require the Radio Equipment, or any part thereof, to
be modified or restricted in use, or temporarily or permanently closed down with immediate
effect if, in the reasonable opinion of the person authorised by Ofcom:
(a) a breach of this Licence has occurred; and/or
(b) the use of the Radio Equipment is causing or contributing to Undue Interference to
the authorised use of other radio equipment. |
| Quote: | The Licensee shall ensure that:
(a) the emitted frequency of the apparatus comprised in the Radio Equipment is as
stable and as free from Unwanted Emissions as the state of technical development
for amateur radio apparatus reasonably permits; and
(b) whatever class of emission is in use, the bandwidth occupied by the emission is
such that not more than 1% of the mean power of the transmission falls outside the
nominal modulated carrier bandwidth3 |
| Quote: | When operating the Radio Equipment the Licensee shall:
(a) only use the frequency bands specified in Schedule 1, subject to the limitations set
out in that Schedule;
(b) only use a power level relating to those frequency bands which does not exceed
the maximum power level specified in Schedule 1; and
(c) take account of any other limitations set out in Schedule 1 which apply to the class
of Licence held by the Licensee |
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/radio-spectrum-and-the-law
| R0b0t1 wrote: |
Why are you okay with other people taking your rights? |
Nice strawman. Your rights end where my rights begin. if my modifications interfere with your ability to use a service OR impact your quality of life why does my "rights" trump yours? The DRM side of things as I stated is moot as it is between content providers and consumers. From a FSF point of view they can push that as much as they like and if they don't want FOSS software used to facilitate that sure why not. On the carrier side of things you are completely wrong and out of order trying to pull a strawman, the FSF see this hence why they added the exception to the GPL-3 to cater for medical and radio devices yet for some reason you know best when the FCC,OFCOM, electrical engineers, FSF all say you shouldn't mess with these. I draw the line when safety comes into things and you are advocating violating safety, ergo your opinion on this is moot
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
Last edited by Naib on Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:29 am; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
