| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
R0b0t1
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 264
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I am not entirely sure I understand the FSF's opinion on what constitutes an open distribution. But, they have lots of smart people associated with them, so I trust their judgement.
As far as the GPLv3 is concerned, I think it serves a useful purpose. The point of the license is to prevent Tivoization in addition to the other abuses already covered. There is no reason Tivoization needs to exist. If the device were to break or to go out of maintenance, I suspect users would have a valid claim to access the restriction method so that they could run their own code. This implies that users may have a right to run their own software on the hardware before that point. On the other hand, the free market seems to desire Tivoization. I am conflicted, and must admit I do not know what is right.
I am afraid that projects like Clang will take the funding (sometimes indirectly, in volunteer time) away from comparable GPL-licensed projects. Any concerns about the difficulty of sharing code between GPL-licensed projects is likely dwarfed by the concerns about non-GPL-licensed projects simply never receiving any contributions from companies who extend their functionality.
Hopefully I will die soon, and if I go to Heaven I will have a chance to work on open hardware and software.
Last edited by R0b0t1 on Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:12 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
R0b0t1
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 264
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | 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 |
Yes, the first paragraph is saying exactly what I was saying. But further I suggest manufacturers have no liability in the case that an end-user modified the equipment such that it produces harmful interference.
If they do have liability, then I do not understand why car manufacturers should not also be held liable for creating cars which can potentially be crashed by gross negligence on the operator's part, or why gun manufacturers should not also be held liable for creating guns that are used for murder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| R0b0t1 wrote: | | Naib wrote: | 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 |
Yes, the first paragraph is saying exactly what I was saying. But further I suggest manufacturers have no liability in the case that an end-user modified the equipment such that it produces harmful interference.
If they do have liability, then I do not understand why car manufacturers should not also be held liable for creating cars which can potentially be crashed by gross negligence on the operator's part, or why gun manufacturers should not also be held liable for creating guns that are used for murder. |
The manufacturers are not liable, hence I was stating users are... (－‸ლ). Sales of transmission equipment are categorised. If an OEM wants a fully open hardware platform it must be certified for the entire frequency range it is capable of, the standards are tighter and the testing is more expensive. If it fails they are not permitted to sell, its as simple as that. Targeting a frequency range is simpler but then the equipment needs to be bound to what it was passed as. Take a Wifi router... are you buying a wifi router or a broad spectrum transmitter? if you want a broad spectrum transmitter than buy one, if you modify a wifi router to be a broad spectrum transmitter but the quality of the hardware is such that the harmonic content outside the 2.4/5GHz range is extremely poor well...
lets take your car analogy (VW aside...) To sell a car it has to pass certain emissions. If a user modifies their car and it then fails its emissions in the UK it fails its MOT and is not allowed on the road anymore. exactly the same thing with radio devices JUST there is no ongoing testing and it is more a reaction to complaints
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:57 pm 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? |
You're extremely wrong.
FCC approval (and the equivalent in every other country, by international convention) states that a device may not transmit out of band from its license or in a way which interferes with other operators. This includes deliberate design choice and accidental noise. If a radio transmitter (e.g. phone in this case) transmits out of band because of some flaw in the design then the manufacturer bears the penalty. If the device was modified or used in a way so as to cause interference then the operator bears the penalty.
Look at pretty much any device that uses radio, or its owner's manual. Baby monitors for example. It says something to the effect that this device must not cause interference and must tolerate any interference caused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | | 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? |
You're extremely wrong.
FCC approval (and the equivalent in every other country, by international convention) states that a device may not transmit out of band from its license or in a way which interferes with other operators. This includes deliberate design choice and accidental noise. If a radio transmitter (e.g. phone in this case) transmits out of band because of some flaw in the design then the manufacturer bears the penalty. If the device was modified or used in a way so as to cause interference then the operator bears the penalty.
Look at pretty much any device that uses radio, or its owner's manual. Baby monitors for example. It says something to the effect that this device must not cause interference and must tolerate any interference caused. |
Exactly. Recent FCC changes had people up in arms that they were no longer able to modify "their" hardware. The FCC was closing loopholes with regards to domestic wifi (as their transmission powers were getting over 500mW) and the pollution they could cause in the 2.4,5GHz range. A small carrier area is all that is needed allowing the main area for the software (FOSS and all..) Mobiles have done this since OTA was a thing with the radio img.
Take wifi, the channel range is 1-14. In Europe the permitted channels are 1-13 and in america 1-11 are allowed. So why not channel 14? guess what that frequency range is used by, Globalstar satellite phones.
In America you could use channel 12 & 13 IF the transmission is low power. (-50dB or such). THe major difference is in America 1-11 are permitted to be transmitted at 1W but in Europe its 100mW
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
Last edited by Naib on Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: |
| 1clue wrote: | | The term commonly used is "toxic." |
That seems less accurate but not less vitriolic. |
Less accurate than what? And more vitriolic than what? Cancer?
IMO "cancer" is often fatal no matter what you do. Toxic (a term chosen by those discussing the GPL, not me) is something inimical to the health of an organism, which when removed will likely enable a full recovery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought your reply referencing "toxic" was in response to my use of the term cancer.
I wrote "no less vitriolic" not more vitriolic.
Some cancers have been considered curable. I think the challenge of curing cancer is a more accurate comparison than the challenge of treating a toxic condition. Toxicity is a relatively easy clean-up task when compared with curing cancers.
I don't recall if I'd heard toxic used; virus, yes. I can't recall if my use of cancer was independent or if I encountered it elsewhere.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | I thought your reply referencing "toxic" was in response to my use of the term cancer.
I wrote "no less vitriolic" not more vitriolic.
Some cancers have been considered curable. I think the challenge of curing cancer is a more accurate comparison than the challenge of treating a toxic condition. Toxicity is a relatively easy clean-up task when compared with curing cancers.
I don't recall if I'd heard toxic used; virus, yes. I can't recall if my use of cancer was independent or if I encountered it elsewhere. |
Just to be sure, I'm not attacking anyone here. This is a civil discussion AFAIC.
I've heard "toxic" for years, but frankly it may be from discussions of commercial vendors who want to use open source software. I've been a professional programmer for decades, and have frequently had this discussion with groups of people within a corporate environment. When the lawyers get involved they tend to use the word "toxic."
Unfortunately they often use that word with reference to all open source software, not knowing that there is any license which does not infect closed-source software using the FOSS code. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
szatox
Advocate
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 3129
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | THe major difference is in America 1-11 are permitted to be transmitted at 1W but in Europe its 10mW |
In Europe it's 100mW actually.
| Quote: | 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  |
Flawless logic, indeed.
Anyway, GPL says that when you distribute pre-compiled software you must also provide access to the source code.
I had an impression that Tivo basically jumped through a loophole in GPL2 by selling black boxes with some GPL-licensed stuff and claiming that they do not distribute _software_ so this rule does not apply to their case.
I also had an impression that GPL3 intended to close this loophole.
This matter gets more confusing with every single post touching it. 
| Quote: | 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). (...)
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
|
Naib, this bit suggests that if I replaced the software in a radio transmitter, you'd blame the manufacturer for allowing it. Your later posts suggest you don't, so this statement was probably just a clumsiness on your part, but you really shouldn't be surprised with the reactions you got there.
Now, what if I just remove the cover and put my finger (or a ferrite bead) next to some chip? I suppose I could find a part or 2 sensitive enough to skew the clock. Is it manufacturers fault too? Or should they just say that the device has been modified and shift the responsibility to another party? How is it different from altering CRDA database?
Also... How are those 2 cases (tivoisation and setting rampaging radio waves lose on the world) like each other? One is all about maximizing profits by limiting access, and the other is about 'something' by considering actions with some result a crime. Although 'business' and 'crime' do have some common "corner cases", we are used to at least pretending they go by different sets of rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| szatox wrote: | | Quote: | | THe major difference is in America 1-11 are permitted to be transmitted at 1W but in Europe its 10mW |
In Europe it's 100mW actually. |
Thats what I said
| szatox wrote: |
| Quote: | | 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 |
Flawless logic, indeed.
Anyway, GPL says that when you distribute pre-compiled software you must also provide access to the source code.
I had an impression that Tivo basically jumped through a loophole in GPL2 by selling black boxes with some GPL-licensed stuff and claiming that they do not distribute _software_ so this rule does not apply to their case.
I also had an impression that GPL3 intended to close this loophole.
This matter gets more confusing with every single post touching it.
|
TiVo actually provided back to the kernel.
Equally as stated the GPL aimed to close this and then they ran into the issue about what to do about legal requirements w.r.t. lock down so they then re-permitted it (as I quoted straight from section 6)
The GPL states when you distribute pre-compile software of GPL origin you must provide the source code. It does not say anything about non-gpl because well... its none of their damn concern
| szatox wrote: |
| Quote: | 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). (...)
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
|
Naib, this bit suggests that if I replaced the software in a radio transmitter, you'd blame the manufacturer for allowing it. Your later posts suggest you don't, so this statement was probably just a clumsiness on your part, but you really shouldn't be surprised with the reactions you got there.
Now, what if I just remove the cover and put my finger (or a ferrite bead) next to some chip? I suppose I could find a part or 2 sensitive enough to skew the clock. Is it manufacturers fault too? Or should they just say that the device has been modified and shift the responsibility to another party? How is it different from altering CRDA database?
Also... How are those 2 cases (tivoisation and setting rampaging radio waves lose on the world) like each other? One is all about maximizing profits by limiting access, and the other is about 'something' by considering actions with some result a crime. Although 'business' and 'crime' do have some common "corner cases", we are used to at least pretending they go by different sets of rules. |
Re-read EXACTLY what I wrote.
and you as an end-user do not have a legal right to just pollute the airwaves
The OEM, if it wants to sell equipment must ensure aspects cannot be modified & this is documented. If you open up the equipment and change a few base resistor to increase the loadline you can increase the transmission power. This is an end-user modification and they are liable under local broadcasting laws. Sure they will probably get away with it but the end-user is liable and I was quite clear in all my posts on this. Likewise degraded equipment can start to do some funny things but you are grasping at straws if you think such "finger touches" or modifications will jump bands in a usable fashion, at best you will make a narrow band whitenoise generator distrupting equipment in the band it might settle on
OEM has a responsibility to ensure what is sold meets the legal requirements.
End-user is responsible for it usage
While I agree Tivoisation & EMI are both different cases ( and considering one is right in my field I will argue the case if people advocate changing EMI fingerprints), the GPL does not distinguish between them and thus encompasses them. As a result if an OEM can demonstrate they have legal obligations an OEM can lock down aspects of their hardware with their software and still use GPL-3 software throughout (linkage affecting the OEM-software aside as that then makes the OEM software GPL but you don't have to link to call an application to bootstrap aspects of the hardware)
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | Just to be sure, I'm not attacking anyone here. This is a civil discussion AFAIC.
I've heard "toxic" for years, but frankly it may be from discussions of commercial vendors who want to use open source software. I've been a professional programmer for decades, and have frequently had this discussion with groups of people within a corporate environment. When the lawyers get involved they tend to use the word "toxic."
Unfortunately they often use that word with reference to all open source software, not knowing that there is any license which does not infect closed-source software using the FOSS code. |
When in doubt, I generally presume civility. It seems the best course of action involving text based discussions :)
It's possible I've heard toxic and it just didn't have an impact beyond recognition of the criticism. But it is amusing that lawyers would call what is essentially their handiwork, toxic. Though I'm guessing lawyers in the position of defending it think differently of it.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Balmer called linux toxic. The GPL is more like a virus as it "infects" that which it links to.
Not saying thats its a bad thing, if you care about your code then it is perfect as those that use it must provide tweaks
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | I thought your reply referencing "toxic" was in response to my use of the term cancer.
I wrote "no less vitriolic" not more vitriolic.
Some cancers have been considered curable. I think the challenge of curing cancer is a more accurate comparison than the challenge of treating a toxic condition. Toxicity is a relatively easy clean-up task when compared with curing cancers.
I don't recall if I'd heard toxic used; virus, yes. I can't recall if my use of cancer was independent or if I encountered it elsewhere. |
For me i think what people wish iron out there is that it is spreading, while virus also spread they need a way to jump out to spread, and you don't really die from cancer, you die once the cancer has spread in your organism.
Actually i would say cancer fit better, or virus because a program touching the license gets enclose by the license too, so jumping to the other software.
toxic looks less accurate except if you aim at not looking at how it spread, but more as a "don't touch it" warning.
GPL any versions are made to spread, you are using GPL code in your program, so your program must endup GPL or following the GPL rules, and the primary use of GPL is to make sure anyone distributing a program base on your work must also gives your work and its modifications to everyone.
GPL is not free, it's a license with rules, so you have no freedom in the rules, they are define and fix, the freedom comes that anyone using your code will be force to gives away its code too (if he distribute a program base on your code), and you will have the modifications even the guy didn't want to share them with other or yourself.
The perfect example of stupidity found in GPL usage would be grsecurity patches that are GPL (that's what the website still say), sure they have rights to now asking that you pay or get an account to access the code (the license state you may ask fee for it), but once you have the patches, you have all the rights yourself to distribute them how you wish, even freely to anyone, even without modifying the code. Nowhere it is written in the license that you must 1/ not distribute it because you have pay it 2/ that you also must ask the same fee amount or any fee amount. You can do what you want, ask a bigger fee, less fee or no fee at all, and this for the exact same code.
People think the freedom in GPL is for you, where the freedom is for the user using your code, he can do what he wants with it as long as he doesn't distribute it, and once he distribute it, he lost himself freedom and transfer it to next user. You might have a return yourself, because next user must distribute its changes (but only if he distribute the work base on it, if he do a fucking kick ass program for himself with it but don't give any copy away, you no rights to ask anything to him), and you can use them too yourself then, but even the code is yours and you can relicense it, the change parts are not yours and you have no rights to relicense them, hence why if anyone distribute GPL code, it is his own creation and could relicense it, but all parts that were add by others need also to be agreed from all authors to be relicense or you must discard them, ending finally with your original code. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | Balmer called linux toxic. The GPL is more like a virus as it "infects" that which it links to.
Not saying thats its a bad thing, if you care about your code then it is perfect as those that use it must provide tweaks |
According to this, Ballmer called it cancer. And he later claimed to love it. So who knows, he probably also called it toxic and a virus, and any combination of all of them.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| krinn wrote: | For me i think what people wish iron out there is that it is spreading, while virus also spread they need a way to jump out to spread, and you don't really die from cancer, you die once the cancer has spread in your organism.
Actually i would say cancer fit better, or virus because a program touching the license gets enclose by the license too, so jumping to the other software.
toxic looks less accurate except if you aim at not looking at how it spread, but more as a "don't touch it" warning. |
At the end of the day, I think they all get the general idea across fairly well, and for those who dislike it, more accurately than a neutral term. That's kind of the point.
| krinn wrote: | GPL any versions are made to spread, you are using GPL code in your program, so your program must endup GPL or following the GPL rules, and the primary use of GPL is to make sure anyone distributing a program base on your work must also gives your work and its modifications to everyone.
GPL is not free, it's a license with rules, so you have no freedom in the rules, they are define and fix, the freedom comes that anyone using your code will be force to gives away its code too (if he distribute a program base on your code), and you will have the modifications even the guy didn't want to share them with other or yourself. |
Without being an expert, that's where v2 seemed like a fair exchange. v3 seemed to go to far in that it also prevented you from using it in certain ways. I don't recall the details, except that IIRC it spread (sorry) into offerings of web software / services too. The complexity of v3 and the "it does what?" aspect make it not worth the headache, and especially not the legal liability and financial risks.
| krinn wrote: | | The perfect example of stupidity found in GPL usage would be grsecurity patches that are GPL (that's what the website still say), sure they have rights to now asking that you pay or get an account to access the code (the license state you may ask fee for it), but once you have the patches, you have all the rights yourself to distribute them how you wish, even freely to anyone, even without modifying the code. Nowhere it is written in the license that you must 1/ not distribute it because you have pay it 2/ that you also must ask the same fee amount or any fee amount. You can do what you want, ask a bigger fee, less fee or no fee at all, and this for the exact same code. |
I don't think I have a problem with that at all, and I believe that is partly how it is supposed to work, though I'd guess v3 "fixed" that loophole. Though I suppose a person or company choosing that as a business model might qualify as stupid.
| krinn wrote: | | People think the freedom in GPL is for you, where the freedom is for the user using your code, he can do what he wants with it as long as he doesn't distribute it, and once he distribute it, he lost himself freedom and transfer it to next user. You might have a return yourself, because next user must distribute its changes (but only if he distribute the work base on it, if he do a fucking kick ass program for himself with it but don't give any copy away, you no rights to ask anything to him), and you can use them too yourself then, but even the code is yours and you can relicense it, the change parts are not yours and you have no rights to relicense them, hence why if anyone distribute GPL code, it is his own creation and could relicense it, but all parts that were add by others need also to be agreed from all authors to be relicense or you must discard them, ending finally with your original code. |
That's probably a reasonable interpretation. I think use of free / liberty was done intentionally to be misleading. I believe free / liberty would be interpreted by most people to mean unrestricted.
I'd use another trigger word to describe GPL-style-free, but I'll leave that for another time. Using "cancer" caused more of a stir than I would have thought (one might have guessed my use of it in this thread was the first ever!).
But I will add that I've listened to some interviews with RMS and agree with him on some points.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R0b0t1
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 264
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | You're extremely wrong.
FCC approval (and the equivalent in every other country, by international convention) states that a device may not transmit out of band from its license or in a way which interferes with other operators. This includes deliberate design choice and accidental noise. If a radio transmitter (e.g. phone in this case) transmits out of band because of some flaw in the design then the manufacturer bears the penalty. If the device was modified or used in a way so as to cause interference then the operator bears the penalty.
Look at pretty much any device that uses radio, or its owner's manual. Baby monitors for example. It says something to the effect that this device must not cause interference and must tolerate any interference caused. |
The device as designed by the manufacturer can not do those things. If I modify it (via code or hardware) the device is no longer compliant and it is illegal to operate it.
It is not up to the manufacturer to prevent me from modifying it. Naib and yourself are merely repeating your views and not justifying them in any way. Please address the point I made about the comparable situation involving car or gun manufacturers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6051
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
what modification to a car or a gun would stop other car/guns from working? none...
a modification in bandwidth can and does stop others from working and equally puts lives at risk.
The FCC/CE/OFCOM are there to oversee what may or may not work in this environment. If an OEM wants to sell a piece of broadcasting equipment it must be approved by FCC/CE/...
why do you advocate putting peoples lives at risk? why does your self-declared rights to modify and pollute trump the rights of others to use.
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | ...
It's possible I've heard toxic and it just didn't have an impact beyond recognition of the criticism. But it is amusing that lawyers would call what is essentially their handiwork, toxic. Though I'm guessing lawyers in the position of defending it think differently of it. |
Look at this with respect to a commercial software vendor trying to release a closed-source app.
Without getting into the nitty gritty of it, if you hardcode a closed-source app with a reference to GPL code, that closed-source code becomes GPL.
It's not that hard to dynamically link code, and if necessary make a lightweight implementation of an interface which links to gpl code (probably dynamically similar to an odbc connection). But lawyers get scared, especially when the app they're making sells for 6 figures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Depending on the amount of GPL code, I could see time to fix it (if only a small amount) or a fine if an appreciable amount. Unless it was all GPL, I can't imagine it would be unworkable. A lot depends on the situation.
Apparently the FSF was in violation of the GPL for not distributing source code for a time. It was unintentional, but I doubt they'd pay a fine.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54211
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
R0b0t1,
Should you modify a gun and it explodes and hurts you, that's fine.
If you modify you car, say by removing the brakes and it hurts other people, that would be criminal.
In the UK the car would no longer be compliant with the construction and use regulations.
There are construction and use regulations for motor vehicles and for the use of the radio spectrum for broadly similar reasons.
It prevents a Tragedy of the commons situation arising.
I trust if you ever visit the UK, you will drive on the left hand side of the road?
Arnold Schwarzenegger screwed up. Notice the image of the three cyclists (Arnold and minders) on the wrong side of the road in the bus lane?
He was lucky not to be injured by an oncoming bus or taxi.
When I visit the USA I try to remember to drive on the right too.
If you modify a radio transmitter to change its characteristics, you will be denying others the use of the radio spectrum.
The parasitic parameters may change (unintentionally), the desired parameters may change (intentionally) and probably both.
The effects might prevent you or others communicating with emergency services, which may be a life or death situation.
The FCC won't track you down until after the event, when its too late.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:52 am 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. |
| pjp wrote: | | The thread subject is an example. Gentoo allows users too much choice. The GPL-3 similarly removes more choice from users. |
Wow, even more non-sequiturs magically plucked from the air. | 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? |
| Quote: | | 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. |
It's called "share-alike." | Quote: | | That sounds similar to a virus. Consider the cancerous description similarly with regards to GPLv3. |
So it seems the answer to my question is: yes, you do buy into that characterisation.
At which point, I lose all respect for your position: all you are presenting is the same attitude that the Microshits of this world have used to hobble Linux since the beginning.
| 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, but the original project no longer gets the changes from the fork. |
Er, my understanding is that the GPLv3 was the version which forbade vendor lock-down (or "Tivoization") so I'm not sure what you're saying here, apart from misrepresenting license violation as compliance.
| Quote: | 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.
.. So, yeah. Malignancy seems to fit, as does invasiveness and metastasis. Obviously not exactly, since it is software. |
Man, what a crock.
Still, at least I now know what your position on FLOSS truly is; you really wish it didn't exist, except when it comes time to you wanting to use it for nothing.
YAF windoze refugee wanting stuff for FREE.. meh.
And in the process, presenting the same argumentation that was used decades ago to try and stop Linux getting anywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | There are construction and use regulations for motor vehicles and for the use of the radio spectrum for broadly similar reasons.
|
Personally, I'm fine with lockdown for legislated safety reasons, so long as there is a true case for it, such as in a pacemaker.
My position is that if there is an engineer's interface, then it must be accessible to an adult end-user (perhaps with a screwdriver.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | what modification to a car or a gun would stop other car/guns from working? none...
a modification in bandwidth can and does stop others from working and equally puts lives at risk. |
Many modifications to guns put more lives at risk.
Came up recently with the awful shooting in the States; the mod can be bought on the net for $100, and bingo: fully-automatic in an instant.
You don't blame the gun manufacturers for the illegal mod: you blame the person spraying bullets at bystanders.
Sure, there is a valid argument that more guns leads to more deaths; but that's another matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cord
Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 344
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think, you guys have too strayed from the topic ...guns, cars, Schwarzenegger 
Actually it is about Gentoo and what it lacks to be FSF endorsed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54211
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cord,
:)
Originally, Gentoo lacked ACCEPT_LICENSE=
Today, the default setting of ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -EULA" allows non FSF approved software to be installed by default.
ACCEPT_LICENSE= can be set to a FSF approved string if users prefer that.
Creating that string is left as an exercise for the reader. There are currently 212 licences in /usr/portage/licenses/ to choose from.
Think about what Gentoo is. Its really portage and the gentoo ebuild repository. Users make up their own minds if they want a FSF approved install or not.
My Gentoo would not be FSF approved. Another Gentoo might be. They are both Gentoo, so it makes it hard to approve, unlike a binary distro that can start out FSF approved until things from non core repositories are installed.
The stage3 distributed by gentoo and the few binary packages that Gentoo distributes coulld well be FSF approved, I've not checked. but that's not enough for a working install.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| 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
