The recent discussions on the proposed version 3 of the GNU General PublicLicense have been well documented here and elsewhere. This proposal hasclearly exposed some differences of opinion within the developmentcommunity, with the anti-DRM provisions being at the core of the debate.The addition of these provisions has created a fair amount of ill willagainst the Free Software Foundation; opposition to them appears to havecreated similar feelings in the opposite direction.In theory, this disagreement should not come about. GPLv2 contains thefollowing language:9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. If the FSF is adhering to its part of this bargain, then anybody who boughtinto the "spirit" of GPLv2 should not have trouble with this revision. So,clearly, those who oppose the GPLv3 draft - many of whom have released vastamounts of code under GPLv2 - believe that the revisions are not "similar inspirit." Some have gone as far as to accuse the FSF of using its powerover the GPL to push its founder's radical agenda onto the code of largenumbers of unwilling developers.That accusation is probably over the top. The FSF is, with GPLv3,attempting to respond to a number of problems as it sees them. Softwarepatents are a clear problem, and the GPLv3 draft tries to mitigate thatproblem somewhat. International applicability of the license has not yetproved to be a problem in practice, but it is clearly something thatreasonable lawyers can worry about. It seems worth fixing the languagebefore some court somewhere on the planet decides that the GPLv2incantations only work in the US. And so on.The FSF also, clearly, sees locked-down systems as a problem. It isinteresting that this has not always been the case; back in 2000, LWN took issue with an interview withRichard Stallman, where he said:I'm less concerned with what happens with embedded systems than Iam with real computers. The real reason for this is the moralissues about software freedom are much more significant forcomputers that users see as a computer. And so I'm not reallyconcerned with what's running inside my microwave oven.(This interview has disappeared off the original site, but theWayback Machine has it).Most TiVo owners probably see their gadget as being more like a microwaveoven than a computer. It is not that TiVo has come along since then (the2000 LWN article mentions it); what has changed is the FSF's - or, at least,Richard Stallman's - position on it.There are few people who disagree with the idea that locked-down systemscan be a problem. Beyond the fact that such devices will always deny usersthe full potential of the hardware, they can spy on us, deny fair userights under copyright law, lock us out of our own data, prevent us fromfixing serious problems, and so on. Locked-down systems are designed toimplement the goals of somebody other than the ultimate owner of thedevice. Such systems are undesirable at best, and outright evil at theirworst.The disagreement is over how this problem should be addressed. The twosides, insofar as there are two clear sides, would appear to be these: The anti-DRM provisions are a licensing-based response to a legal and market problem. They prohibit legitimate uses of the technology (examples could be ensuring that certified software runs on voting machines or systems - like X-ray machines - which could hurt people if the wrong software is run) while failing to solve the real problem. These provisions are trivially circumvented by putting the software in ROM, do nothing about the DRM being incorporated into all aspects of computing systems, and would primarily result in Linux being replaced with proprietary software in the embedded market. These provisions are a new restriction on how the software can be used, and, thus, are not "similar in spirit" to GPLv2. The new provisions are needed to preserve the user's freedom to modify, rebuild, and replace the original software on devices that this user owns. Failure to provide encryption keys when the hardware requires them is a fundamental failure to live up to the moral requirements of using free software and, according to some, is already a violation of GPLv2. DRM is an evil which threatens to take away many of the freedoms we have worked so hard to assure for ourselves; it must be fought whenever possible and it certainly should not be supported by free software. The anti-DRM provisions simply reaffirm the freedoms we had thought the GPL already guaranteed to us, and, thus, they are very much "similar in spirit" to GPLv2.This logjam looks hard to break. Your editor, in his infinite humility,would like to offer a couple of suggestions, however: Reasonable people who believe in free software, and who have put much of their lives into the creation of that software, can support either of the two viewpoints above (or other viewpoints entirely). They are not (necessarily) free software fundamentalist radicals, corporate stooges, people on power trips, or any of those other mean and nasty things they have been called in recent times. We can discuss this issue without doubting each others' motives and without the need for personal attacks. The FSF clearly has some strong feelings about what it wants to achieve with this license revision, and there are issues it does not want to back down on. There have also been signs, however, that the FSF is listening more than it has in the creation of any other license. This process is not done yet, there is no GPLv3 at this time. Continued, polite participation in the process would seem to be called for.Finally, while your editor is standing on this nice soapbox... Theanti-DRM language was very appealing when it first came out. Your editordoes not much appreciate the idea of some vendor locking up his softwareand selling it back to him in a non-modifiable and potentially hostileform. It is a violation of the social contract (if not the legal license)under which the software was contributed. But the attempt to address thisproblem in GPLv3 carries a high risk of splitting the development communitywhile doing very little to solve the real problem. Dropping that languagecould help to bring the community back together behind the new license,leaving us united to fight DRM (and numerous other attacks on our freedom)in more effective ways. The FSF may want to consider whether, in the longrun, its goals would be better served by a license which lacks thislanguage. Such a license might be closer to the spirit which brought thiscommunity together in the first place. (Log in to post comments) Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 5, 2006 0:55 UTC (Thu) by Sombrio (guest, #26942) [Link]
Magic Vocal Remover Full Version Serial Key
Download: https://urlcod.com/2vJZRi
That worries me too, but I don't stay up thinking about it at night because I think things just look that way.The kernel community is one of the most visible and vocal parties when it actually has something to say in the public. And while the majority of the stakeholders in GPLv3 have been relatively quiet, preferring to work within the Free Software Foundation's open license drafting process, the kernel developers have limited their response to complaint, telling the press GPLv3 is wrong, telling the press FSF is wrong, drafting a document (thankfully some of them at least went this far, but they really ought to participate officially rather than lob press releases), and further complaint.It's no surprise to me that it appears as if we're split right down the middle. Anyone unhappy about the license is going to scream, but anyone pleased with it is going to sit back with a smile (think, Tux just got laid!)There seem to be a lot of people that are really happy with the way things are going. We still haven't reached agreement, but that's why further draft(s) are coming. Sun and Nokia, for example, are encouraged and predict even further improvement.The _real_ danger isn't from the GPLv3 license - it's from the GPLv3 license FUD. If you want to make sure we don't get split, focus on de-fusing emotional tension wherever you encounter it. Discuss the license but encourage real participation. And make sure that people realize that preemptive reactions to an unreleased license are absurd, especially if that stakeholder refuses to officially participate.Cheers! Similar in spirit? Posted Oct 6, 2006 14:37 UTC (Fri) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link]
(I shall include by reference my request made elsewhere that you return to my set of points in response to your earlier points further down on this page.)> Firstly, i have heard this "what if the GPLv2 is ruled unenforceable"> boogeyman a number of times. It is just not happening. What is> happening is that the GPLv2 is alive and kicking and enforced (and even> litigated) in lots of important jurisdictions. A healthy number of> precedents have built up in Europe for example, and in the US 99%+ of> the defendants rushed into settlements without even thinking about a> trial. Judges in Germany, the US and elsewhere are showing a clear and> deep understanding the GPL and the obligations attached to it. You're right. GPLv2 is a strong license. And I think no one does a better job of explaining why than Eben Moglen, the lawyer standing at the front lines of the Free Software Foundation. Indeed, no one knows better than Eben just how well GPL works except maybe your colleague Harald Welte, netfilter developer and gpl-violations.org project lead, who I gather is the only kernel developer concerned enough with GPLv3 to participate beyond mere bickering (pardon the jab, but you still have not answered my inquiry in this area even after I have asked multiple times).> Please think about it, and dont just accept the FSF's position at face> value. Please show some critical thinking. You know Ingo, it is perfectly valid for you to hold an opinion on this matter but I don't think you can claim any kind of expert status over the very man who spends his days as an actual _attorney_ working with defending the GPL license here and abroad.Attorneys don't sit around passively and react to situations; part of their regular job is to actively monitor their own crystal balls for signs of trouble and develop intelligent responses to questions that have yet to appear.No matter how unlikely you think it is that GPLv2 could ever fail to do precisely what it intends to do, Mr. Moglen (the man whose work you are now trying to stop) sees a need to internationalize the license. Internationalizing the license means divorcing the GPL from the very American concept of 'derivative work', and carefully picking language that does not imply any particular legal meaning in any particular legal system in the world.Once again, it is important to realize that Linux, a largely Western project, isn't the only GPL-using free software commodity in the world. I get the distinct sense from monitoring the news and international conferences on this subject that free software authors are popping up in any place there are computers, and that there is a particular emphasis and opportunity for this reality because part of the Freedom is the freedom to have the knowledge all others have, which can be a great enabler if you are trying to do better than your third world country would normally allow.So I think it's damn essential that the GPL not only defend our software there, but that it should also defend their software there as well. They should be comfortable using the GPL license, and frankly, they're going to be more comfortable using it if it isn't tied entirely to United States copyright law. Once again, Ingo, you have the full right of not using GPLv3, and I have no interest in convincing you that you should. But I find your position about the so-called moral obligations of the FSF now that its positions clash with yours an indefensible reason to deny the many users and developers who want and need GPLv3 the right to have it. And that is why I strongly object to your strong and repeated assertion of this red herring.> On one side of the equation are more than 1 billion lines of code,> worth tens of billions of US dollars, given away for free, with a few> common-sense conditions attached to it, described in very clear words> (in the GPLv2) that is easily translated to many languages, and which> has been enforced to the true letter and intent of that license in> important jurisdictions.I find it interesting that you keep referring to the large body of GPL code out there. When it's the evil Free Software Foundation going back on their promises, taking advantage of all the poor free software developers too stupid, lazy or busy to notice that their inclusion of the words "or any later version" at the top of every file that comprises their great work, it is a problem that must be stopped. The FSF wields too much power over that code!But when it is the FSF proposing to defend those billions of lines of code worth billions of US dollars from the whims of, well, every diverse legal system on the planet, you accuse people of having not used critical thinking because they worry that the fantastic GPLv2 might not work quite the same on every place on Earth. So you don't want the FSF - the drafters of the GPL license, the philosophers behind the Free Software movement, and the programmers behind much of the combined GNU/Linux system to do anything but sit absolutely still and hope disaster never strikes? And you go further and claim you have been wronged when they try?Mr. Molnar, I'm beginning to suspect the reason you haven't replied to any of my other messages is that your whole position is truly indefensible. 4 points Posted Oct 7, 2006 4:28 UTC (Sat) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] 2ff7e9595c
Comments