Re: [gentoo-user] 2 to 3??

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

On Tuesday 17 July 2007, burlingk@×××××××××.mil wrote about 'RE: 
[gentoo-user] 2 to 3??':
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lunarcrisis@×××××.com [mailto:lunarcrisis@×××××.com] On
> > Behalf Of Henk Boom
> > On 16/07/07, Volker Armin Hemmann
> > <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de> wrote:
> > > because gplv3 removes freedom?
> >
> > As far as I remember from when I read it, it does not take
> > any freedoms which the previous versions did not intend to.
>
> The four freedoms:
> Freedom 0: The freedom to run a program for any purpose.
> Freedom 1: To study the way a program works, and adapt it to your needs.
> Freedom 2: To redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbors.
> Freedom 3: Improve the program, and release your improvements to
>            the public, so that the whole community benefits.
> For freedom 1 and 3 to work, the code must be open.
>
> Freedom 1 is just as important as the other three. Freedom one is
> almost eliminated in GPLv3.

Absolutely not.  Freedom 1 is stronger than EVER.  The distributor of GPLv3 
licensed works is now prevented from using technological, and patent-law 
means to limit users' freedoms, including freedom 1.  Under the GPLv2, 
technological means (DRM) wasn't covered at all, and patent provisions 
where not nearly as explicit.

Remember that the GPL has always been about all the users NOT just the 
developers/distributors -- "adapt it to your needs" is not allowed when it 
restricts other users' freedoms.

Think about RMS' printer incident, where the driver/firmware was crap but 
locked down so he couldn't fix it.  Free software should not be able to be 
locked down in that way (among other things); in this day and age, that 
means preventing Free Software from undergoing "Tivoization".

> Stallman used to be so set
> on THAT mindset (software vs. hardware), that he was in favor of
> those groups that didn't want to make the source code of every ROM
> chip they made open to the world,

Sure.  Stallman, last I heard, is still in the camp that code on read-only 
memory is part of the hardware, and does not necessarily need to be Free 
Software -- it might as well be an IC rather than code.  HOWEVER, he 
believes code that *can* upgraded -- such as BIOSes that support flashing, 
or firmware that is loaded into chip memory by the OS, any bits that 
execute and CAN be changed -- should be Free Software, especially if it is 
derived from (in the copyright sense) Free Software.  

That's what is especially irksome about "Tivoization", the distributor of 
the software (Tivo) has more rights than the users' of the software (us).  
For a license (GPLv2) whose goal is to protect all users' freedoms, and 
values users' freedom over developers/distributors to be turned 
upside-down by technological means is unacceptable -- prompting the 
development of GPLv3 to correct the situation.

> GPLV3 says, if you want to use code in a public way, you have
> to crack open your box so that people can play with it however
> they want, and then that potentially compromised box still has
> to be able to connect to your network if it connected in it's
> unmodified form.  That very much deals with the hardware.

The GPLv3 says if you covey software to a user under the licence, that user 
must be able to upgrade the software and use it in the same way they used 
the software you gave them.  That's actually what the GPLv2 says as well, 
although it doesn't specifically ban technological measures that 
accomplish that goal.

If you want to allow your code to be locked up by someone else, use BSD.
If you want to lock your code up yourself, use a proprietary license.
If you want all users of your software to have the four freedoms, use 
GPLv3.

> Under the spirit of the GPL, one could take code and use what
> they could.  They still had to have the technical capabilities
> to use that code, and understand the platform it was on.

Not quite true.  Under the spirit of the GPL, anyone could take code they 
were provided under the license and use what anyone could, they didn't 
have to understand the code to benefit from improvements others made.  
Gentoo (and other distributions) regularly patch code that I don't 
understand and I end up getting an improved version of KDE/GNOME/X and the 
entities behind those projects don't (and shouldn't be able to) prevent 
Gentoo from providing that service.

> Under the new version, if you don't understand the code, then
> something must be wrong with the code.

Not true.

> If the code is full of
> machine dependant features that cannot compile on another type
> of machine, then something must be wrong with the code.

Not true.  Even if something *was* wrong with the code, code quality is not 
enforced by the GPl (any version).

> Free Software is about Freedom.  GPLv3 is about religion.  You
> are free as long as you do things our way.

GPLv2 also places a load of restrictions on distributors to ensure that all 
users get all four freedoms.  GPLv3 places more, necessary restrictions 
since GPLv2 has allowed distributors to effectively remove users' 
freedoms.  The GPLv3 is all about freedom -- but freedom is only realized 
by restricting the ability to limit freedom.  ("Your freedom to swing your 
fist ends an inch from my face.")

> That is why I shy away from the GPL licenses.  I like the
> LGPLv2, but GPLv3 is kind of scary.  I want code that I make
> free to be free.  :P  I don't want to say, "It is free if you
> are a broke penniless college kid that plans to stay that way."

Sounds like you want the GPL then -- since it explicitly allows commercial 
use as long as the four freedoms are preserved to all users.

> LGPLv2 allows wide use of code, without heavy demands.

LGPL does do one thing that can be nice, and it prevents the viral nature 
of copyright law from affecting your code -- that is it allows others the 
freedom to license their original work under whatever license they choose 
(as you did), combine it with your work, and distribute the whole as long 
as they follow your license for your stuff.

It's a very good license, and I think that it is normally the better 
license to choose *unless* your goal is to have all software be Free 
Software.

> If I by some miracle produce a chunk of code that propels another
> entity to the top of their industry, then I have achieved something
> Whether I get anything in return from them or not.  If they
> are able to take what I have produced and make it useful, then
> more power too them.  If they give back to the community in the
> form of code, cash, or even morale support, then that is them
> playing the game by our rules.

Not if you follow the GPLv2 or the spirit of the GPL.  That *requires* the 
code to remain in the community.  The GPLv3 strengthens this requirement.  
If you want other to be able to lock away your code (or derivative works 
of your code) you should use the BSD license.

-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.                     ,= ,-_-. =. 
bss03@××××××××××.net                      ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy           `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/                      \_/