Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 11:14:06AM +0300, Momchil Velikov wrote: >> Greg KH wrote: >>> So we wrote up a little whitepaper about it. If you wish to discuss any >>> of the specific points in that paper, please feel free to do so. >> Quote from "Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 " >> (http://lwn.net/Articles/200422) >> >> "... This in turn is brought about by a peculiar freedom enshrined in >> the developer contract as represented by GPLv2, namely the freedom from >> binding the end use of the project ..." >> >> I find tivoization violating this freedom. > > How does what Tivo does, violate anything in GPLv2? I have no idea, why are you asking me? I said I find tivoization violating ``this freedom'', by ``this freedom'' meaning the freedom in the paragraph quoted above, namely "the freedom from binding the end use of the project". >> "Finally, we recognise that defining what constitutes DRM abuse is >> essentially political in nature and as such, while we may argue >> forcefully for our political opinions, we may not suborn or coerce >> others to go along with them. Therefore, attempting to write these type >> of restrictions into GPLv3 and then relicense all FSF code under it is >> tantamount to co-opting the work of all prior contributions into the >> service of the FSF's political ends, and thus represents a fundamental >> violation of the trust outlined in section 4." >> >> Do you deliberately misrepresent the purpose of existence of FSF? It's >> been created from the very beginning with the purpose of defending >> certain moral values, expediency having lower priority. Violation of >> trust may occur only if you claim GPLv3 defends different moral values >> then GPLv2. Is that what you claim? > > The FSF has changed "moral values" over time, so you might want to ask > them. Years ago, they thought what Tivo was doing was just fine and > dandy. Now they don't. I asked "Do you claim GPLv3 defends different moral values than GPLv2?", for the very purpose of establishing whether or not FSF has violated the contributors' trust ``only to licence the code under versions of the GPL that "... will be similar in spirit to the present version"''. I have no intentions on arguing whether or not FSF or individual FSF members used or used not to make statements, which could be interpreted as ``changing moral values''. There's GPLv2 and there's GPLv3(draft), which I consider the authoritative in judging FSF position. > And, even if you do think that what Tivo is doing is not nice, the way > that the v3 license words it all, is just wrong. It provides escape > clauses for different types of hardware, and tries to make a > technological solution in a license, which is not a good thing for > anything that is going to exist for 20+ years. > > That is proven out by the poll of 30 kernel developers, not all of which > agree on the whole "tivo is good" issue at all, but they _all_ agree > that the current version of v3 is not good. That should mean a lot > here. What is that thing in the license, which you call a "technological solution" ? >> And then, living on the Balkan Peninsula, I find the use of the term >> "Balkanisation" racist[1] and insulting. > > I'm sorry you feel that way, you might take it up with Wikipedia which > defines the term at: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanisation I'm not arguing about the existence or the meaning of the term. > as: > Balkanization is a geopolitical term originally used to describe > the process of fragmentation or division of a region into > smaller regions that are often hostile or non-cooperative with > each other. ... which is neither limited to the Balkan Peninsula nor applicable to the whole Balkan Peninsula, which includes Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey and former Yugoslavia parts. > No racial overtones were ment to be expressed at all, as the above > definition shows. Can you provide a different term that describes the > same thing? fragmentation >> In the end, I think you could have simply stated that you defend >> different set of values and GPLv3 is not compatible with your set of >> values (a.k.a. political views), instead of trying to represent yourself >> as "apolitical" and trying to undermine the public's trust in FSF. > > Since when did we try to undermine the public's trust in FSF? It should have been obvious from my quotes, which I reproduce below: "attempting to write these type of restrictions into GPLv3 and then relicense all FSF code under it is tantamount to co-opting the work of all prior contributions into the service of the FSF's political ends, and thus represents a fundamental violation of the trust outlined in section 4." > Since > when did any of us trust the FSF at all? No idea, I have never claimed nor implied any of *you* did trust. > I sure never have, and neither > have most kernel developers. We are just pointing out all of the > different problems that we have with the v3 drafts, and point out the > problems that are going to be caused if it is ratified as is. > Not to mention all the LGPLv3 issues that are going to happen for > distros, that's going to be a fricken mess... > > It's coming down to the age old, "Free Software" vs. "Open Source" > arguments again, right? Not at all, you misunderstood. It's all about the FUD spreading about FSF: "violation of the trust outlined in section 4" "the problems that are going to be caused if it is ratified as is" "Not to mention all the LGPLv3 issues that are going to happen for distros, that's going to be a fricken mess..." ~velco -- Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel. Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/ FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
