Comments on: what fsf got wrong

By: Entenda quais s�o e como funcionam licen�as de software livre

Entenda quais s�o e como funcionam licen�as de software livre — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:20:27 +0000

[...] caras do Kernel est�o (e n�o est�o) falando sobre a GPLv3 O que os caras do Kernel entenderam erradoo que a FSF entendeu erradoTags: FSFGNUGPLLinuxOpensourcecr�ditos: MeioBit 0 Comments © linuxnarede – Todos [...]

By: Moving to Freedom

Moving to Freedom — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 20:45:25 +0000

GNU/Solaris and GPLv3…

I found an interesting article at The Register yesterday, “Is ‘GNU/Solaris’ emerging from the Microsoft-Novell deal?” It would be awesome if Sun released the Solaris kernel under the GPLv3, because I think that would be a chan…

By: Pauses Café » Blog Archive » Licensing by intent

Pauses Café » Blog Archive » Licensing by intent — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:06:58 +0000

[...] It seems that there are many things both camps got wrong (you can read more on Luis Villa’s blog, here, here and here). [...]

By: Mark Radcliffe

Mark Radcliffe — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:19:52 +0000

I am puzzled by the view that patents are immoral. Copyrights and patents are simply laws that are designed to encourage certain economic behaviour (although the French/German approach to copyrights are more based on personal right). If you couch the discussion as one about morality, you will lose a large portion of your audience, because these decisions are clearly so economic in character. That said, complaints about the patent system have been common throughout US history and the system has been modified to deal with the problems (see the change to eliminate “submarine patents”). Similarly, I think that the kernal guys have missed a major chance to try to persuade Eben and Richard. In fairness, I am running one of the committees so I have made my decision to participate, but I think that they are open to persuasion on many issues. Frankly, DRM does not appear to be an issue in which they are willing to compromise, but you will never know if you are outside of the process.

By: Rob Myers

Rob Myers — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:21:25 +0000

The problem with the Kernel Developers position on DRM (and this can be seen in Debian-Legal’s attitude to the Creative Commons anti-DRM language as well) is that they view DRM as a technology, not as an extension of copyright law. DRM has power only through law: it would not be illegal to remove or reverse-engineer DRM otherwise. But too many hackers idealise DRM systems as code and DRM-laden files as data. They ignore the legal dimension, and this leads to confused reasoning.

To cite the FSD or DFSG freedom to modify code in support of this new excess of copyright law is an example of that confused reasoning. You cannot modify BSD-licensed code to remove the copyright header for example, and you cannot add the string “all rights reserved” to the top of a GPL-2-licensed file, yet despite restricting your freedom in this way neither license breaks the FSD or the DFSG. If the BSD license said “you may not write a script to remove this header”, would that break the DFSG?

DRM is an extension of copyright law that can prevent computer users from exercising their freedoms. Those who support DRM seem to view code, rather than human beings, as the subject of Free Software’s freedoms. This is an impoverished understanding of freedom. But if you must write DRM code, the GPL-3 will not prevent you. It just removes the legal privileges that such code would otherwise have to remove users’ freedom.

By: Luis

Luis — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:45:12 +0000

And I might add that the kernel guys could clearly have raised these objections within the system first. They’d come off less as whiny children and more as reasonable adults if they’d done that. Even if you think Eben and RMS are total jackasses, there is something to be said for holding the moral high ground- which frankly no party does at this point.

By: Luis

Luis — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 12:37:10 +0000

I’ve taken the liberty of editing that last post to point out that it came from an OSDL employee. I might note that it would also have had more credibility if it spelled ‘Eben’ correctly. :)

Sch: Linus has been just as aggressive and belittling, if not more so- go see some of his posts on groklaw, for example. He’s been incredibly rude to PJ.

More relevantly than any personal attacks one way or the other, I object to your characterization of the other commitees as yes men- you clearly clearly missed the point of my first essay. Most of us feel that (1) this is RMS’s process, and we’re helping fix the license as best we can within that framework, whether or not we use it later and more importantly (2) most of us feel that patents and DRM are substantial and important threats and abuses which must be dealt with. So if agreeing about freedom and wanting to make the best possible license within the constraints offered makes us yes men… well, then, I guess we’re yes men. But I think that’s a broken and bogus characterization, and I hope most people see through that if that is the tack OSDL and the embedded vendors are going to take.

By: Sch [OSDL]

Sch [OSDL] — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 05:00:40 +0000

The kernel developers did not directly particpate in the GPLv3 review process because it was clear from the beginning that any direct comments would not cause change. After the first draft, Linus and others made it clear what they thought of the “DRM” clauses. But Eban/Richard did not change their position one bit; they just clarified it and made it stronger. Why would any group of people who disagree want to particpate in a process where their input is ignored, they are belittled (see Eban’s comments about Linus), and it was never a consensus process at all? The members of Committee B, which is the only group that seems to not contain all yes people, is well aware of the kernel communities opinions. In fact, at the last meeting Committee B was surprised to find out that
the concerns and opinions of the kernel community matched those of the Commitee.

By: Luis

Luis — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:01:16 +0000

Their deep pockets make them the most interesting target for patent trolls, though.

By: Aristotle Pagaltzis

Aristotle Pagaltzis — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:41:02 +0000

Mind you, the kernel hackers can more or less ignore patent threats. For one thing, they have a lot of contributors from industry, so they would have powerful backing in any case. For another, the rights to their codebase is spread over thousands of contributors, so any patent attack on the kernel would punch water. They simply don’t have a lot to worry about.

Small projects run by just a handful of developers without corporate backing (ie. the majority of free software) are under much bigger threat from patent claims.