Thoughts on GPLv3

[Vergil83]

i'm with linus. anti-DRM should be kept personal, and not be brought into the technical side of things. stallman's problem is that he is intent on controlling all open source. i just hope he doesn't cause problems within the community by trying to go to war with linux

100% crap

1) Stallman doesn't want to control open source. He wants to help free software. Free software has always said that freedom is more important than any other aspect in sofware. DRM doesn't allow fair use (granted you are not in the US).

2) This is the same as some saying we should all use BSD type licenses and hope that everyone plays nice. We don't. We should do the same with DRM.

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

my point is that stallman has control issues. he insists we all call linux gnu/linux for heaven's sake! if stallman lets linus keep linux as gplv2, i'll say no more on the matter. until he releases a statement, i'll stop speculating what goes on inside his head.

secondly, i do not agree with DRM for public use either, but regardless, it is being used. we have to accept this until the general public wake up and smell the coffee, when hopefully it will be rejected. we must also accept that DRM and the technology it uses has uses inside certain circles where controlling data is vital (i.e. the government). i know they currently run windows at the mo, but many are looking at linux as an alternative, and if linux was to tell them to refuse measures that may help them control the information, then they will flat out refuse to use it. now this isn't me saying that linux should be used everywhere, just that i don't want my personaly data being kept on windows machines, if you catch my drift.

[Vergil83]

my point is that stallman has control issues. he insists we all call linux gnu/linux for heaven's sake! if stallman lets linus keep linux as gplv2, i'll say no more on the matter. until he releases a statement, i'll stop speculating what goes on inside his head.

secondly, i do not agree with DRM for public use either, but regardless, it is being used. we have to accept this until the general public wake up and smell the coffee, when hopefully it will be rejected. we must also accept that DRM and the technology it uses has uses inside certain circles where controlling data is vital (i.e. the government). i know they currently run windows at the mo, but many are looking at linux as an alternative, and if linux was to tell them to refuse measures that may help them control the information, then they will flat out refuse to use it. now this isn't me saying that linux should be used everywhere, just that i don't want my personaly data being kept on windows machines, if you catch my drift.

I am not going to get into GNU/Linux thing because that has been talked to death before.

But, I didn't see anywhere that Stallman asked the kernel be released under 3.0. Stallman has no control whatsoever on the the licence of the kernel.

However, I think you are confused about what DRM is. It is not making sure that some people can't see certain information. The governement info (or my credit card numbers) should not be open for everyone to see, I agree. But making sure that is true will be done by permissions and encryption. DRM only works if you already have the information. It does nothing from stopping the movement of the information.

There is a reason that there are no DRM schemes that have not been cracked, and DRM is only used by the movie and music industries.

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

well, let's leave the stallman debate.

the thing about GPLv3 is that implementing it in linux will mean that movie and music industries will bypass it when releasing the keys to use their IP (playing music etc). so while windows users and Mac users will get to listen to DRMed music, us linux users will have to rely on "illegal" cracks to do the same. then when the industries have the "crackers" up in court and suing them for all they're worth, we won't have anything to play media. open source developers are not criminals, and thus they would be an easy target for huge media corporations when they can't find the real criminals. like i said, i don't agree with DRM but if i have to use it, i'll use it.

[techieMoe]

so while windows users and Mac users will get to listen to DRMed music, us linux users will have to rely on "illegal" cracks to do the same.

There are other alternatives out there. I think the RIAA/MPAA fail to recognize that unlike mass transit and healthcare, theirs is a product the general public can live without. I for one do not download DRM-protected music nor do I buy CDs first-hand. Sites like Magnatune offer original music by independent artists that you can download in several formats, none of which have any type of DRM or copy-protection.

The RIAA has pushed me away from their music, and I vote against them with my wallet. I've found plenty of non-DRM-encumbered artists that I enjoy just as much as anything I bought from the record companies in the past. If anything, the RIAA is helping the cause of non-affiliated artists by pushing more people to explore other alternatives. Given the choice between giving a blood sample to listen to one low-fidelity track by a major artist and having complete freedom with the music WE rightfully purchased, I think more people will choose the road less traveled, which is good for musicians in general.

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

i agree that DRM abuse will push some away, but i'm sure you will agree that linux users must have the choice to listen to DRM music if they want to. that's why we started using linux to begin with. like i say, we might not agree with DRM but eventually the big media companies will be DRMing most of their products and by giving DRM companies the ability (and thus incentive) to write DRM keys to use their software, we will have either a method for playing DRM media, or a good reason for being forced to use cracks.

[Cryptofreak]

Alan Cox speaks out on GPLv3 and DRM.

http://news.com.com/The+open-source+...html?tag=carsl

Pretty good article for all of you who know who he is!!

[jaboua]

Alan Cox speaks out on GPLv3 and DRM.

http://news.com.com/The+open-source+...html?tag=carsl

Pretty good article for all of you who know who he is!!

Linus Torvalds does the same:
some LKML quotes at NewsForge

[Cryptofreak]

I think techieMoe put it best!

I can't speak for Linus; he follows his own drummer, and if that drummer stays with GPLv2, so be it. I personally like the anti-DRM measures in GPLv3.

Linus does follow his own drummer, and by looking at his responses I honestly feel that he has chosen to stay with GPLv2 because he really believes that is the best place for the Linux kernel!

Yes I agree DRM is bad for freedom and I do not like it at all myself, though I am sure at my place of employment I use products that have it. However, Let's say he moved to GPLv3 that has such a tough stance on DRM, well that will limit what is able to be used, made, written, unwritten. . .etc on Linux. Eventually another version comes out with more changes and limits, and over and over, and before you know it, you no longer have a Linux that is freely available, distributable, useable by anyone and everyone, it would just become another Proprietary software package complete with a EULA that tells you what you can and cannot do with YOUR copy of Linux.

I agree with Linus that the fight against DRM needs to be taken to the proper place. People need to speak out and say to those who make products with it, that they need to stop.

For some software writers currently under GPLv2, an upgrade to GPLv3 may be the best for them and their software. That is the best thing about freedom, the choice is theirs to make.

The FSF has their heart in the right place, as they want to see freedom prevail. We are the ones who need to speak out as DRM hurts us, not the software we have written.

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

I think techieMoe put it best!



Linus does follow his own drummer, and by looking at his responses I honestly feel that he has chosen to stay with GPLv2 because he really believes that is the best place for the Linux kernel!

Yes I agree DRM is bad for freedom and I do not like it at all myself, though I am sure at my place of employment I use products that have it. However, Let's say he moved to GPLv3 that has such a tough stance on DRM, well that will limit what is able to be used, made, written, unwritten. . .etc on Linux. Eventually another version comes out with more changes and limits, and over and over, and before you know it, you no longer have a Linux that is freely available, distributable, useable by anyone and everyone, it would just become another Proprietary software package complete with a EULA that tells you what you can and cannot do with YOUR copy of Linux.

I agree with Linus that the fight against DRM needs to be taken to the proper place. People need to speak out and say to those who make products with it, that they need to stop.

For some software writers currently under GPLv2, an upgrade to GPLv3 may be the best for them and their software. That is the best thing about freedom, the choice is theirs to make.

The FSF has their heart in the right place, as they want to see freedom prevail. We are the ones who need to speak out as DRM hurts us, not the software we have written.

i agree with you totally. i suppose in some software GPL3 will be good as it will stop people modifying adding DRM to the code, against the consumer's wishes. however, it has no place in the linux kernel because of the wide variety of tasks it can be used for.