Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions Management”, “Digital Restrictions Malware”, and “digital handcuffs”.
How is that not a dishonest redefinition?
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:15
>>40 that definition doesn't guarantee them the right to share modified copies under free licenses.
Now you're just restating the exact same thing in >>32. What does this mean.
that's the thing that makes the GPL a proprietary license and not a real free license.
I would accept this if I agreed with the previous premise. I don't understand the previous premise and until I understand, I cannot accept this to be correct.
see >>10 for an example of a real free copyleft license.
Under the RMS definition, >>10's terms are acceptable as giving users their freedom.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:19
>>41
The logic here is:
1. Someone thinks up a label. Ex: Digital Rights Management
2. Someone else thinks up another label that happens to share some characteristics. Ex: Acronym, Digital Restriction Malware
3. This new term is a reference to the original term
4. Forget about the fact that the new term is also accurate from 2's point of view
5. Dishonesty!!
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:19
Now you're just restating the exact same thing in >>32. What does this mean.
it means that users can't share modified versions of GPL'd software under the license in >>10.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:31
>>44
I think I have an idea of what you're getting at but I still don't understand. Are you saying this.
1. Foo publishes the GPL software Bar
2. Baz modifies Bar
3. Baz shares Bar with Qux
4. Baz is now obligated to share the source code and a certain set of rights together with Bar.
5. Baz cannot share Bar under >>10's license
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:34
5. Dishonesty!!
Your hypocrisy is staggering. Are you a troll?
Did you know that Sony would bundle rootkits on non-free music audio CDs? A rootkit is a cracker tool (please do not confuse ``cracker'' with ``hacker'', the latter having no negative connotations, as it only means ``someone who enjoys playful cleverness—not necessarily with computers'',) in other words -- malware. Would you call pointing a weapon at someone to gain compliance ``managing'' them? I would call that enslaving them. And what this malware was for? Definitely not to give you the freedom to exercise any rights -- in fact, it was meant to restrict them.
So the issue is very clear. ``DRM'' has always meant Digital Restrictions Malware. Only the vendors of digital restrictions (and those astroturfing for them, I guess) claim that this acronym means something else. They are the ones who are guilty of making a dishonest redefinition: those digital slavers have the gall to claim that they manage your rights while they take them away!
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:37
>>46
I don't want to be hypocritical, I just don't understand the logic.
You can't share the software without including 34 FUCKING KILOBYTES of restrictions.
You can't share the code in binary form without also sharing the source code.
You can't combine the code with code written under any free license and distribute the result under a free license.
For a "free" license, the GPL sure does take away a lot of freedom.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:49
34 FUCKING KILOBYTES
It would take 205603 hits on s3 to cost you ONE US DOLLAR of bandwidth. Grow up a little. "Free" is not about price.
>>51
34 KB is quite a bit when you're trying to fit a whole operating system into 1MB of flash ROM.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 2:58
>>52
Are you saying that you can't even spare 3.3% of your space for something as fundamental as freedom? I can only pity you.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:00
You can't share the software without including 34 FUCKING KILOBYTES of restrictions.
Are you living in the 1970's? Here in 2009, we can afford to attach 34 kilobytes of text together with programs that weigh more than 1 megabyte.
You can't share the code in binary form without also sharing the source code.
Yes. This is a requirement so the recipient of the software will also have their right to tinker (freedom 1). With relation to software, this means the user must have the right to access the program's source code. Freedom 1 is related to the right to sovereignty; without it, a citizen cannot remain sovereign.
You can't combine the code with code written under any free license and distribute the result under a free license.
So people are forbidden to combine GPL software with free software? According the RMS's definition of free software, the GPL is free software.
For a "free" license, the GPL sure does take away a lot of freedom.
What does this mean? Explicitly state which liberties are taken away.
Yes. This is a requirement so the recipient of the software will also have their right to tinker (freedom 1). With relation to software, this means the user must have the right to access the program's source code. Freedom 1 is related to the right to sovereignty; without it, a citizen cannot remain sovereign. >>10's license manages to let people keep that right without making this restriction.
What does this mean? Explicitly state which liberties are taken away.
Freedoms 2 and 3 are severely restricted, but not taken away entirely. Just like with many other proprietary licenses.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:22
look at how big your kernel is. 34KB is a lot more than 3.3% of the space left after you put a very stripped down kernel onto that flash ROM.
So embedding a copy of the GPL text into a limited space ROM chip is the only way to fulfill that part of the GPL. Let's just stop everything guys, it's obvious this problem cannot be fixed.
>>10's license manages to let people keep that right without making this restriction.
Yes it does.
Freedoms 2 and 3 are severely restricted, but not taken away entirely. Just like with many other proprietary licenses.
So they're restricted. Now what? Users of GPL software still have their right to freedom 2; users of GPL software can still live as upstanding citizens as they are allowed to share unmodified software as they wish. Users of GPL software still have their right to freedom 3; users of GPL software can still contribute to their community as they wish. So what's the problem?
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:26
>>58
With a proprietary license you wouldn't even be able to have any of those freedoms. I do find the GPL to be a little restrictive in some aspects, and I'd probably advocate a license more like >>10 but I'd rather use a program under the GNU GPL than under a proprietary license.
So embedding a copy of the GPL text into a limited space ROM chip is the only way to fulfill that part of the GPL. Let's just stop everything guys, it's obvious this problem cannot be fixed.
well, it's better than charging people $0.10 more for a piece of paper with the license on it, or even more than that for another ROM chip or a bigger one.
Users of GPL software still have their right to freedom 3; users of GPL software can still contribute to their community as they wish. So what's the problem?
the problem is that they can't contribute to their community as they wish.
>>60
GNU GPL is a proprietary license, just like CDDL, MPL, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:29
>>62
You keep saying it's proprietary, but I don't think you know what that word really means.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:31
Actually, you might be running non-free programs. You shouldn't run them.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:41
>>61
So you'd rather cut costs by avoiding GPL code* (which is often available at low cost) over hiring development time to reimplement the GPL program or licensing a similar proprietary program. GREAT LOGIC THERE!!!
*Assuming the only free version is available under the GPL
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 3:46
the problem is that they can't contribute to their community as they wish.
Sorry, my intent was this: users of GPL software are still allowed to contribute to their community when they wish. To distribute proprietary software isn't contributing to a community.
*Assuming the only free version is available under the GPL
fortunately this isn't the case.
To distribute proprietary software isn't contributing to a community.
software isn't proprietary just because it comes without source code. people modify software all the time without source code, and there are licenses, like >>10, which explicitly allow this.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 4:04
*Assuming the only free version is available under the GPL
This is a contradiction. To be free, they must be available under the GPL.
software isn't proprietary just because it comes without source code. people modify software all the time without source code
It takes an unnessary amount of effort to make meaningful changes to binary code. Users need source code in order to practise freedom 1 in a meaningful way.
Proprietary software is non-free by virtue of not granting enough rights to practise all four essential freedoms.
>>69
Think of two independantly developed and functinally comparative programs. One of these programs are free software licensed under the GPL and the other one under a non-GPL free licence.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 4:48
GPL is fucking retarded, look at the users of free software, unless you plan to contribute (tinker with the code) you won't even want the goddamn source code, not to mention contributing simply means working for free for a business who would make money off your contributions anyway. Most end users don't give a shit about the freedoms Stallman trump so much, they just want software thats free as in free beer, fuck freedom.
ITT dipshits who don't actually know what the GPL says and don't understand evolutionarily stable strategies.
Anti-free-software faggotry is getting old, guys.
IHBT
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 4:57
>>71
Wrong. Users only need the authority to tinker with code. If the user has authority, the user can find a friend or hire a skilled person to tinker with the code.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 5:02
>>72
And better yet, it doesn't even have to be licensed under the GPL to be free software. Using the MIT or BSD license is just as good. They're compatible with the GNU GPL anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 5:05
Jesus Fucking Christ. RMS should be shot.
Hey, somebody tell him TTF/OTF fonts have embedded hinting programs. YOUR FONT RENDERING LIBRARY MIGHT BE RUNNING NON-FREE PROGRAMS! Oh God. Some video players can play embedded fonts, and most browsers are quickly gaining support for it. Not to mention PDF documents!
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 5:07
Your computer DSPs and microcontrollers might be running non-free programs!
Your watch might be running non-free programs!
Your home appliances might be running non-free programs!
The traffic lights you abide by might be running non-free programs! Heck, your CAR might be running non-free programs!
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-23 5:07
It takes an unnessary amount of effort to make meaningful changes to binary code. Users need source code in order to practise freedom 1 in a meaningful way.
tell that to the people who use www.menuetos.org