Some day Stallman may be saying it's GNU/Solaris

[TankCatNinjaFish]

There wouldn't even be a pharmaceutical industry today if it weren't for patents. Developing a single requires at the minimum $2 billion, hundreds/thousands of people and a decade of R&D, testing, etc*. At the end of which there is no guarantee that there will be a return of investment. Without patents this kind of risk would be impossible for investors. Meanwhile Canadians and europeans are screaming for US drug companies to just give away their medicine and research for free.

* Yes, I am aware that Vista took similar time, money, and manpower to create. The different between Vista and pharmaceutical drugs are that 1) Vista is guaranteed to sell 100's of millions of copies no matter what, and 2) obviously an OS can be developed for less.

[CptnObvious999]

On no it's this old GPLv3 debate again!

Here's how I see it short and simple:

The GPL is all about freedom for the user.

By saying hardware vendors can't use signed hardware with the Linux kernel how much freedom are you really giving back to users? very little, but you are punishing Tivo.

If you were to ask 1,000 Linux users if they need the freedom to hack their Tivo's maybe 1 or 2 would say they do.

If you were to ask 1 of the Tivo employees the same thing they would say hell no.

In my eyes it's a small gain for a big loss.

[allix]

There wouldn't even be a pharmaceutical industry today if it weren't for patents. Developing a single requires at the minimum $2 billion, hundreds/thousands of people and a decade of R&D, testing, etc*. At the end of which there is no guarantee that there will be a return of investment. Without patents this kind of risk would be impossible for investors. Meanwhile Canadians and europeans are screaming for US drug companies to just give away their medicine and research for free.

* Yes, I am aware that Vista took similar time, money, and manpower to create. The different between Vista and pharmaceutical drugs are that 1) Vista is guaranteed to sell 100's of millions of copies no matter what, and 2) obviously an OS can be developed for less.

The pharmaceutical industry at least in the states is as you say a high profiting business, where subscribing more or any drugs to a patient rather than none or what they need is practiced. I remember reading a article in the new scientist, it really was like a article from George Orwell's 1984.
This practice has not in a big way caught on here thankfully, because there are strong pressure groups against it.
The term "tragedy of the anticommons" coined by Michael Heller, explains why patents are not a good idea in regard to innovation.
There is a summary on wikipedia on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons

[Tsuroerusu]

On no it's this old GPLv3 debate again!

You know there's no way to do a GPLv3 debate with me!

The GPL is all about freedom for the user.

Absolutely! The GPL has ALWAYS been about software freedom, and if you think that GPLv3 is all of a sudden a politically motivated process, think again, both GPLv1 and GPLv2 were politically motivated! And if you think GPLv2 is all magical and special, ask the Japanese to invent a time machine so you can go back to 1991 when it was introduced, you'll see and hear people and lawyers piss and moan about the patent clause that GPLv2 has.

By saying hardware vendors can't use signed hardware with the Linux kernel how much freedom are you really giving back to users? very little, but you are punishing Tivo.

Devon how many freaking times do I have to tell you to read the *bleep*ing license??? GPLv3 is not saying "Thou shall not use DRM to prevent the user from using his own kernel", it's saying that whatever is needed to run a modified version (Which also could be like firmware packaging etc.). So IF the Linux kernel was GPLv3 by tomorrow, that would mean that TiVo could perfectly happily use it in their devices with the DRM to ensure that if a user calls with a problem they know that they're running their certified kernel, however the keys needed to authorize one's own version to run in the device is classified as part of the source code.
Same thing would count for say an election system, you don't have to publicize the keys on the internet, in the same way you don't have to publicize the source code on the internet, but you have to give both to to the people that YOU give the source code to.

If you were to ask 1,000 Linux users if they need the freedom to hack their Tivo's maybe 1 or 2 would say they do.

If you were to ask 1 of the Tivo employees the same thing they would say hell no.

In my eyes it's a small gain for a big loss.

If you were to ask 1,000 US citizens whether they personally need/uses freedom of the press, I would say a very small number would say they do (However since I have never lived in the US, I can't tell for sure).

If you were to ask the NSA whether it's great that people can say and write what they want to, I think they would say something like "hell no", because then people can tell other people about how the NSA spies on people to "protect them from terrorists" and in the process, ruining every bit of privacy they might have had.

In my eyes, the GPL is all about the small guy, it's all about ensuring that if people want to, or need to, have software freedom, then they absolutely can. This was an option Richard Stallman didn't have when he wanted to fix a buggy printer (And indirectly to the benefit of the company that made the printer) at MIT in the late 70', the reason the GPL does what it does, and will do what it will do, is because the FSF wants to ensure that users of free software will never experience what Richard Stallman experienced back then.
Linus may talk about how great the GPLv2 is, but if you think that everybody likes the GPLv2, go talk to some of the BSD zealots and they'll tell you something like "OH GPL IS TERRIBLE", "THIS IS COMMUNISM!!!", "IT'S TAKING AWAY MY FREEDOM TO TAKE AWAY THE FREEDOM OF OTHER PEOPLE, OH IT'S SO TERRIBLE!!!". OK, maybe they wouldn't say that last one, but that's in reality what they think is OK to do.

Instead of spewing FUD about the GPLv3, why don't you go get your *bleep*ing facts straight (Which you could do by simply reading the license (doh), or listening to the interview with Jeremy Allison that I have, to your convenience, already posted links to), or just shut up entirely!?!?!?

[CptnObvious999]

Devon how many freaking times do I have to tell you to read the *bleep*ing license??? GPLv3 is not saying "Thou shall not use DRM to prevent the user from using his own kernel", it's saying that whatever is needed to run a modified version (Which also could be like firmware packaging etc.). So IF the Linux kernel was GPLv3 by tomorrow, that would mean that TiVo could perfectly happily use it in their devices with the DRM to ensure that if a user calls with a problem they know that they're running their certified kernel, however the keys needed to authorize one's own version to run in the device is classified as part of the source code.
Same thing would count for say an election system, you don't have to publicize the keys on the internet, in the same way you don't have to publicize the source code on the internet, but you have to give both to to the people that YOU give the source code to.

Ok I understand that. However even though you can keep the DRM you have to give the key to unlock it so thats basically rendering the DRM useless anyways. So it means the same damn thing but you are arguing about semantics. Thats like saying you can put a lock on your door but you have to leave the key taped to the front of it, who would even bother locking it?

If you were to ask 1,000 US citizens whether they personally need/uses freedom of the press, I would say a very small number would say they do (However since I have never lived in the US, I can't tell for sure).

I disagree, I know lots of people would say we need freedom of the press although it is definately a freedom we take for granted but if it were to disappear tommarrow you could expect a huge uproar.

If you were to ask the NSA whether it's great that people can say and write what they want to, I think they would say something like "hell no", because then people can tell other people about how the NSA spies on people to "protect them from terrorists" and in the process, ruining every bit of privacy they might have had.

I have a feeling some of the NSA have no care in the world about privacy but I'm sure there is a lot that do. I think a lot of people see the need for privacy no matter where they work. Although I could be wrong...they did re-elect Bush.

In my eyes, the GPL is all about the small guy, it's all about ensuring that if people want to, or need to, have software freedom, then they absolutely can. This was an option Richard Stallman didn't have when he wanted to fix a buggy printer (And indirectly to the benefit of the company that made the printer) at MIT in the late 70', the reason the GPL does what it does, and will do what it will do, is because the FSF wants to ensure that users of free software will never experience what Richard Stallman experienced back then.

Im not exactly sure what you mean by small guy since users are typically a much larger number than developers...

Linus may talk about how great the GPLv2 is, but if you think that everybody likes the GPLv2, go talk to some of the BSD zealots and they'll tell you something like "OH GPL IS TERRIBLE", "THIS IS COMMUNISM!!!", "IT'S TAKING AWAY MY FREEDOM TO TAKE AWAY THE FREEDOM OF OTHER PEOPLE, OH IT'S SO TERRIBLE!!!". OK, maybe they wouldn't say that last one, but that's in reality what they think is OK to do.

Yes, and I respect their oppinions and the fact that they are sharing them. If nobody was to speak about the way they feel about freedom then our government would be much worse off.

Instead of spewing FUD about the GPLv3, why don't you go get your *bleep*ing facts straight (Which you could do by simply reading the license (doh), or listening to the interview with Jeremy Allison that I have, to your convenience, already posted links to), or just shut up entirely!?!?!?

Haha this is why I love the good 'ol GPLv3 debate. I have listened to Jeremy Allison and I disagree with him. You need to calm down I am simply expressing an opinion.

[Tsuroerusu]

Devon how many freaking times do I have to tell you to read the *bleep*ing license??? GPLv3 is not saying "Thou shall not use DRM to prevent the user from using his own kernel", it's saying that whatever is needed to run a modified version (Which also could be like firmware packaging etc.). So IF the Linux kernel was GPLv3 by tomorrow, that would mean that TiVo could perfectly happily use it in their devices with the DRM to ensure that if a user calls with a problem they know that they're running their certified kernel, however the keys needed to authorize one's own version to run in the device is classified as part of the source code.
Same thing would count for say an election system, you don't have to publicize the keys on the internet, in the same way you don't have to publicize the source code on the internet, but you have to give both to to the people that YOU give the source code to.

Ok I understand that. However even though you can keep the DRM you have to give the key to unlock it so thats basically rendering the DRM useless anyways. So it means the same damn thing but you are arguing about semantics. Thats like saying you can put a lock on your door but you have to leave the key taped to the front of it, who would even bother locking it?

Not really, because if you leave that key on your door everyone can go grab it. Tivo would only have to give their keys to the people they sell their machines to. And each key could be different from the other, if you wanted to do that. I don't have to get the key for running my kernel in your Tivo, I only have to get the key for my Tivo.

If you were to ask 1,000 US citizens whether they personally need/uses freedom of the press, I would say a very small number would say they do (However since I have never lived in the US, I can't tell for sure).

I disagree, I know lots of people would say we need freedom of the press although it is definately a freedom we take for granted but if it were to disappear tommarrow you could expect a huge uproar.

I'm sure a lot of people would say we need it as a society, but I doubt a lot of people actually use freedom of the press.

If you were to ask the NSA whether it's great that people can say and write what they want to, I think they would say something like "hell no", because then people can tell other people about how the NSA spies on people to "protect them from terrorists" and in the process, ruining every bit of privacy they might have had.

I have a feeling some of the NSA have no care in the world about privacy but I'm sure there is a lot that do. I think a lot of people see the need for privacy no matter where they work. Although I could be wrong...they did re-elect Bush.

ROFL, I finally found something you agree with RMS on ... Bush!

In my eyes, the GPL is all about the small guy, it's all about ensuring that if people want to, or need to, have software freedom, then they absolutely can. This was an option Richard Stallman didn't have when he wanted to fix a buggy printer (And indirectly to the benefit of the company that made the printer) at MIT in the late 70', the reason the GPL does what it does, and will do what it will do, is because the FSF wants to ensure that users of free software will never experience what Richard Stallman experienced back then.

Im not exactly sure what you mean by small guy since users are typically a much larger number than developers...

By "small guy" I mean an individual who want to do something different than other people. if I want to have a version of Amarok that can play video, I can take Amarok and hack it to do that. Free software empowers the little man, or whatever you could say.

Linus may talk about how great the GPLv2 is, but if you think that everybody likes the GPLv2, go talk to some of the BSD zealots and they'll tell you something like "OH GPL IS TERRIBLE", "THIS IS COMMUNISM!!!", "IT'S TAKING AWAY MY FREEDOM TO TAKE AWAY THE FREEDOM OF OTHER PEOPLE, OH IT'S SO TERRIBLE!!!". OK, maybe they wouldn't say that last one, but that's in reality what they think is OK to do.

Yes, and I respect their oppinions and the fact that they are sharing them. If nobody was to speak about the way they feel about freedom then our government would be much worse off.

For once we agree on something.

Instead of spewing FUD about the GPLv3, why don't you go get your *bleep*ing facts straight (Which you could do by simply reading the license (doh), or listening to the interview with Jeremy Allison that I have, to your convenience, already posted links to), or just shut up entirely!?!?!?

Haha this is why I love the good 'ol GPLv3 debate. I have listened to Jeremy Allison and I disagree with him. You need to calm down I am simply expressing an opinion.

I don't need to calm down one bit, you need to stop taking the role of Microsoft and stop spewing FUD!

[Vogateer]

Yeah, you don't need to calm down. That is, unless you really want someone to think about something calmly and rationally and perhaps change their mind about some issue. I've never seen anyone change their mind because someone was angry and yelling at them. I've only seen people get defensive, dig their heels in, and refuse to budge, even if it's obvious they're wrong. Give someone a graceful way out, and they just might change the way they think.

[CptnObvious999]

Ok I understand that. However even though you can keep the DRM you have to give the key to unlock it so thats basically rendering the DRM useless anyways. So it means the same damn thing but you are arguing about semantics. Thats like saying you can put a lock on your door but you have to leave the key taped to the front of it, who would even bother locking it?

Not really, because if you leave that key on your door everyone can go grab it. Tivo would only have to give their keys to the people they sell their machines to. And each key could be different from the other, if you wanted to do that. I don't have to get the key for running my kernel in your Tivo, I only have to get the key for my Tivo.

But the end result is still the same, you will be able to put anything you want on the hardware which is what the hardware vendors do not like which is why the GPLv3 is so controversial to people who recognize other people's objections with it (I.E. not Troels).

I'm sure a lot of people would say we need it as a society, but I doubt a lot of people actually use freedom of the press.

Absolutely, everyone I know follows the news in one form or another and plenty of people blog about it.

Im not exactly sure what you mean by small guy since users are typically a much larger number than developers...

By "small guy" I mean an individual who want to do something different than other people. if I want to have a version of Amarok that can play video, I can take Amarok and hack it to do that. Free software empowers the little man, or whatever you could say.

Ok, fair enough although I still think the amount of people that would actually go through with coding that would be one out of a thousand.

Instead of spewing FUD about the GPLv3, why don't you go get your *bleep*ing facts straight (Which you could do by simply reading the license (doh), or listening to the interview with Jeremy Allison that I have, to your convenience, already posted links to), or just shut up entirely!?!?!?

Haha this is why I love the good 'ol GPLv3 debate. I have listened to Jeremy Allison and I disagree with him. You need to calm down I am simply expressing an opinion.

I don't need to calm down one bit, you need to stop taking the role of Microsoft and stop spewing FUD!

I am spewing FUD just because I am expressing my opinion about GPLv3? This seems like an oxymoron. By wishing to change something that is being pushed at me and expressing my opinions I am excersizing my freedom to do so and if I didn't I would just be accepting the way that it is thinking I couldn't change it which is against what the GPL is all about, right? user freedom. If the GPL is indeed looking after "the little guy" why is it so wrong that I say how I feel about it?

[Tsuroerusu]

Yeah, you don't need to calm down. That is, unless you really want someone to think about something calmly and rationally and perhaps change their mind about some issue. I've never seen anyone change their mind because someone was angry and yelling at them. I've only seen people get defensive, dig their heels in, and refuse to budge, even if it's obvious they're wrong. Give someone a graceful way out, and they just might change the way they think.

Thanks Vogateer, brilliant point, I've done some meditation and things are better now.

Ok I understand that. However even though you can keep the DRM you have to give the key to unlock it so thats basically rendering the DRM useless anyways. So it means the same damn thing but you are arguing about semantics. Thats like saying you can put a lock on your door but you have to leave the key taped to the front of it, who would even bother locking it?

Not really, because if you leave that key on your door everyone can go grab it. Tivo would only have to give their keys to the people they sell their machines to. And each key could be different from the other, if you wanted to do that. I don't have to get the key for running my kernel in your Tivo, I only have to get the key for my Tivo.

But the end result is still the same, you will be able to put anything you want on the hardware which is what the hardware vendors do not like which is why the GPLv3 is so controversial to people who recognize other people's objections with it (I.E. not Troels).

Yes, the end result is that you can use DRM to like only provide phone support for your certified version, and refuse supporting users' own version, but you can't use it to restrict the user's freedom.

I'm sure a lot of people would say we need it as a society, but I doubt a lot of people actually use freedom of the press.

Absolutely, everyone I know follows the news in one form or another and plenty of people blog about it.

People reading "the news" is not utilizing freedom of the press, what do you think newspapers in North Korea, or China, look like?
Blogging is a different, that is indeed utilizing freedom of the press, however, I don't think average Joe (As we like to call him) writes on his blog, however I will agree that a lot of people do blog. So let's say that only one person in Amerca wanted to say "Bush is an idiot!", well the point of freedom of speech and press is that he IS able to do that.

Im not exactly sure what you mean by small guy since users are typically a much larger number than developers...

By "small guy" I mean an individual who want to do something different than other people. if I want to have a version of Amarok that can play video, I can take Amarok and hack it to do that. Free software empowers the little man, or whatever you could say.

Ok, fair enough although I still think the amount of people that would actually go through with coding that would be one out of a thousand.

Yes, but the whole point of free software is ensuring that THAT ONE user can do what he wants to. Like with Richard Stallman's printer example, one person wanted to fix some shitty printer, and he wasn't able to, was the printer using free software (And not infested with DRM) then he could. Sure the point of "open source" is make better quality software, but it's not "open source" people who oversee the GPLv3 process, that is Richard Stallman, with Eben Moglen and his right hand man, so we're very much talking free software here.

Haha this is why I love the good 'ol GPLv3 debate. I have listened to Jeremy Allison and I disagree with him. You need to calm down I am simply expressing an opinion.

I don't need to calm down one bit, you need to stop taking the role of Microsoft and stop spewing FUD!

I am spewing FUD just because I am expressing my opinion about GPLv3? This seems like an oxymoron. By wishing to change something that is being pushed at me and expressing my opinions I am excersizing my freedom to do so and if I didn't I would just be accepting the way that it is thinking I couldn't change it which is against what the GPL is all about, right? user freedom. If the GPL is indeed looking after "the little guy" why is it so wrong that I say how I feel about it?

You have the right to say whatever you want to about GPLv3, but you're spewing FUD by saying (This is your words, not mine nor a quote from some other person): "By saying hardware vendors can't use signed hardware with the Linux kernel how much freedom are you really giving back to users? very little, but you are punishing Tivo."
Because that is not what GPLv3 does, but it's what it's "opponents" want you to believe. It's like saying "Linux is less secure than Windows", that's what some people say, and it's what Microsoft wants you to believe.
Tivo can use DRM to verify that their version is running if a customer calls in with a problem, and if it's not their version, they could refuse to support the user, but they can't use it to restrict the user's freedom, which the GPL is all about giving him or her, no matter whether we're talking about GPLv1, v2 or v3, if you read even the preamble of the GPL, you can see that.

You're not spewing FUD by talking about how you feel about GPL, IF you were like "GPLv3 is yet more COMMUNISM!!", then I would just say "Fine, go use BSD!", simple as that.
I am a very very very strong believer in freedom of speech, never question that, I want people to be able to even tell lies, as that is a part of freedom of speech, HOWEVER, I don't like when people tell a lie, or something that is not true.

[CptnObvious999]

Yes, the end result is that you can use DRM to like only provide phone support for your certified version, and refuse supporting users' own version, but you can't use it to restrict the user's freedom.

Ok that makes it better although I still think that the hardware vendors that don't want you to install anything but what they give you. For instance, La Fonera (I think thats what it is called) they give you a router for free so they can expand their wireless network mesh however if you hack the router they don't expand the network and you just got a free router. In this case the GPLv3 would be bad IMHO.

People reading "the news" is not utilizing freedom of the press, what do you think newspapers in North Korea, or China, look like?
Blogging is a different, that is indeed utilizing freedom of the press, however, I don't think average Joe (As we like to call him) writes on his blog, however I will agree that a lot of people do blog. So let's say that only one person in Amerca wanted to say "Bush is an idiot!", well the point of freedom of speech and press is that he IS able to do that.

If we didn't have freedom of the press a lot less people would read the news.

Yes, but the whole point of free software is ensuring that THAT ONE user can do what he wants to. Like with Richard Stallman's printer example, one person wanted to fix some shitty printer, and he wasn't able to, was the printer using free software (And not infested with DRM) then he could. Sure the point of "open source" is make better quality software, but it's not "open source" people who oversee the GPLv3 process, that is Richard Stallman, with Eben Moglen and his right hand man, so we're very much talking free software here.

Ok now we are getting somewhere, this is where I disagree with the FSF and RMS.

You have the right to say whatever you want to about GPLv3, but you're spewing FUD by saying (This is your words, not mine nor a quote from some other person): "By saying hardware vendors can't use signed hardware with the Linux kernel how much freedom are you really giving back to users? very little, but you are punishing Tivo."
Because that is not what GPLv3 does, but it's what it's "opponents" want you to believe. It's like saying "Linux is less secure than Windows", that's what some people say, and it's what Microsoft wants you to believe.
Tivo can use DRM to verify that their version is running if a customer calls in with a problem, and if it's not their version, they could refuse to support the user, but they can't use it to restrict the user's freedom, which the GPL is all about giving him or her, no matter whether we're talking about GPLv1, v2 or v3, if you read even the preamble of the GPL, you can see that.

Ok let me rephrase that so that you don't yell at me anymore. By saying hardware vendors can't tell consumers that they can't put their own version of Linux on their hardware how much freedom are you really giving back to users? very little, but you are punishing Tivo.. Better?

[Tsuroerusu]

Yes, the end result is that you can use DRM to like only provide phone support for your certified version, and refuse supporting users' own version, but you can't use it to restrict the user's freedom.

Ok that makes it better although I still think that the hardware vendors that don't want you to install anything but what they give you. For instance, La Fonera (I think thats what it is called) they give you a router for free so they can expand their wireless network mesh however if you hack the router they don't expand the network and you just got a free router. In this case the GPLv3 would be bad IMHO.

If those "La Fonera" guys actually give someone the device, as in not renting it but giving the ownership to that someone, then I think GPLv3 is absolutely appropriate. If they are just renting the device to somebody, and it is actually their property, then it's a whole different matter, because the box is not yours. However if it was using free software, you still distributed some free software to the user as part of a device, and since free software is not about money, you have to give them the source code and keys as well.

People reading "the news" is not utilizing freedom of the press, what do you think newspapers in North Korea, or China, look like?
Blogging is a different, that is indeed utilizing freedom of the press, however, I don't think average Joe (As we like to call him) writes on his blog, however I will agree that a lot of people do blog. So let's say that only one person in Amerca wanted to say "Bush is an idiot!", well the point of freedom of speech and press is that he IS able to do that.

If we didn't have freedom of the press a lot less people would read the news.

Well, if they didn't know about it, then they would just be like Windows users and take what they have. During WWII, the German population at large bought into all the Jew hate in the newspapers and Der Feurer's book/bible called "Mein Kampf". Sure they could write that in a country with freedom of press, however if you wrote something bad about Mr. Hitler, you were off to Auchswitz the same day!

Yes, but the whole point of free software is ensuring that THAT ONE user can do what he wants to. Like with Richard Stallman's printer example, one person wanted to fix some shitty printer, and he wasn't able to, was the printer using free software (And not infested with DRM) then he could. Sure the point of "open source" is make better quality software, but it's not "open source" people who oversee the GPLv3 process, that is Richard Stallman, with Eben Moglen and his right hand man, so we're very much talking free software here.

Ok now we are getting somewhere, this is where I disagree with the FSF and RMS.

To each his own.

You have the right to say whatever you want to about GPLv3, but you're spewing FUD by saying (This is your words, not mine nor a quote from some other person): "By saying hardware vendors can't use signed hardware with the Linux kernel how much freedom are you really giving back to users? very little, but you are punishing Tivo."
Because that is not what GPLv3 does, but it's what it's "opponents" want you to believe. It's like saying "Linux is less secure than Windows", that's what some people say, and it's what Microsoft wants you to believe.
Tivo can use DRM to verify that their version is running if a customer calls in with a problem, and if it's not their version, they could refuse to support the user, but they can't use it to restrict the user's freedom, which the GPL is all about giving him or her, no matter whether we're talking about GPLv1, v2 or v3, if you read even the preamble of the GPL, you can see that.

Ok let me rephrase that so that you don't yell at me anymore. By saying hardware vendors can't tell consumers that they can't put their own version of Linux on their hardware how much freedom are you really giving back to users? very little, but you are punishing Tivo.. Better?

Not really, because you're still essentially trying to say that GPLv3 is banning DRM, and nope it doesn't. What it does is making DRM useless for the specific purpose of restricting the user's freedom, legitimate things such as support can absolutely still be done. If you read both the GPL, the BSD licenses, the X11 license, the Apache license etc. they all say that "NO WARRANTY IS IMPLIED", so Tivo is providing warranty for unmodified boxes if we're talking a software error, or a hardware error in the case of the user not having opened the box.

[CptnObvious999]

Ok that makes it better although I still think that the hardware vendors that don't want you to install anything but what they give you. For instance, La Fonera (I think thats what it is called) they give you a router for free so they can expand their wireless network mesh however if you hack the router they don't expand the network and you just got a free router. In this case the GPLv3 would be bad IMHO.

If those "La Fonera" guys actually give someone the device, as in not renting it but giving the ownership to that someone, then I think GPLv3 is absolutely appropriate. If they are just renting the device to somebody, and it is actually their property, then it's a whole different matter, because the box is not yours. However if it was using free software, you still distributed some free software to the user as part of a device, and since free software is not about money, you have to give them the source code and keys as well.

So you are saying it is perfectly fine that the simple fact that they used Linux means they should loose a lot of money and maybe go under because it doesn't fit their business model? I think that is rediculous.

People reading "the news" is not utilizing freedom of the press, what do you think newspapers in North Korea, or China, look like?
Blogging is a different, that is indeed utilizing freedom of the press, however, I don't think average Joe (As we like to call him) writes on his blog, however I will agree that a lot of people do blog. So let's say that only one person in Amerca wanted to say "Bush is an idiot!", well the point of freedom of speech and press is that he IS able to do that.

If we didn't have freedom of the press a lot less people would read the news.

Well, if they didn't know about it, then they would just be like Windows users and take what they have. During WWII, the German population at large bought into all the Jew hate in the newspapers and Der Feurer's book/bible called "Mein Kampf". Sure they could write that in a country with freedom of press, however if you wrote something bad about Mr. Hitler, you were off to Auchswitz the same day!

....where were we even going with this?

Ok let me rephrase that so that you don't yell at me anymore. By saying hardware vendors can't tell consumers that they can't put their own version of Linux on their hardware how much freedom are you really giving back to users? very little, but you are punishing Tivo.. Better?

Not really, because you're still essentially trying to say that GPLv3 is banning DRM, and nope it doesn't. What it does is making DRM useless for the specific purpose of restricting the user's freedom, legitimate things such as support can absolutely still be done. If you read both the GPL, the BSD licenses, the X11 license, the Apache license etc. they all say that "NO WARRANTY IS IMPLIED", so Tivo is providing warranty for unmodified boxes if we're talking a software error, or a hardware error in the case of the user not having opened the box.

Forget it, I'm done trying to please you.

[Tsuroerusu]

Ok that makes it better although I still think that the hardware vendors that don't want you to install anything but what they give you. For instance, La Fonera (I think thats what it is called) they give you a router for free so they can expand their wireless network mesh however if you hack the router they don't expand the network and you just got a free router. In this case the GPLv3 would be bad IMHO.

If those "La Fonera" guys actually give someone the device, as in not renting it but giving the ownership to that someone, then I think GPLv3 is absolutely appropriate. If they are just renting the device to somebody, and it is actually their property, then it's a whole different matter, because the box is not yours. However if it was using free software, you still distributed some free software to the user as part of a device, and since free software is not about money, you have to give them the source code and keys as well.

So you are saying it is perfectly fine that the simple fact that they used Linux means they should loose a lot of money and maybe go under because it doesn't fit their business model? I think that is rediculous.

Well, like Jeremy Allison said (I refer to him, because doing redundant work is not necessary), if you want DRM code, write your own code, don't use ours. If I could program, and I were to write a driver, I would put it under license that would ensure that "my users" will always have the freedoms I intend for them to have.
If you wanna prioritize businesses' freedom to have more rights than the end users, or if you wanna go kiss the RIAA and MPAA and not fight these ridiculous idiots, go do that, I'll stand and fight.
A wise man once said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I agree whole heartedly with that. I am not saying that people who accept like binary firmware for WiFi is all of a sudden giving of all of their software freedom, however I think giving more power or just influence to the RIAA and MPAA, is a stupid-ass mistake. Sure if you wanna do it, go ahead, but I won't.

If we didn't have freedom of the press a lot less people would read the news.

Well, if they didn't know about it, then they would just be like Windows users and take what they have. During WWII, the German population at large bought into all the Jew hate in the newspapers and Der Feurer's book/bible called "Mein Kampf". Sure they could write that in a country with freedom of press, however if you wrote something bad about Mr. Hitler, you were off to Auchswitz the same day!

....where were we even going with this?

You were talking about people not reading the news because of a lack of freedom of the press, and I gave an example of the exact opposite.

Ok let me rephrase that so that you don't yell at me anymore. By saying hardware vendors can't tell consumers that they can't put their own version of Linux on their hardware how much freedom are you really giving back to users? very little, but you are punishing Tivo.. Better?

Not really, because you're still essentially trying to say that GPLv3 is banning DRM, and nope it doesn't. What it does is making DRM useless for the specific purpose of restricting the user's freedom, legitimate things such as support can absolutely still be done. If you read both the GPL, the BSD licenses, the X11 license, the Apache license etc. they all say that "NO WARRANTY IS IMPLIED", so Tivo is providing warranty for unmodified boxes if we're talking a software error, or a hardware error in the case of the user not having opened the box.

Forget it, I'm done trying to please you.

Call me a purist if you want to, but I absolutely hate any sort of FUD! I just cannot stand it, because somewhere there is some important person who's gonna believe it and then it's gonna lock down a lot of other people. Example, because so many stupid-ass businesses and schools in Denmark buy into that f*c*i*g lie that is Microsoft's "Get The Facts" propaganda (Or Get The FUD as I say!), we might be less locked down into the Windows crap.

[CptnObvious999]

So you are saying it is perfectly fine that the simple fact that they used Linux means they should loose a lot of money and maybe go under because it doesn't fit their business model? I think that is rediculous.

Well, like Jeremy Allison said (I refer to him, because doing redundant work is not necessary), if you want DRM code, write your own code, don't use ours. If I could program, and I were to write a driver, I would put it under license that would ensure that "my users" will always have the freedoms I intend for them to have.
If you wanna prioritize businesses' freedom to have more rights than the end users, or if you wanna go kiss the RIAA and MPAA and not fight these ridiculous idiots, go do that, I'll stand and fight.
A wise man once said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I agree whole heartedly with that. I am not saying that people who accept like binary firmware for WiFi is all of a sudden giving of all of their software freedom, however I think giving more power or just influence to the RIAA and MPAA, is a stupid-ass mistake. Sure if you wanna do it, go ahead, but I won't.

Ok I am just trying to look after the little guy of small business who doesn't have the resources to write their own OS. I think Linux should be open to such uses and you do not. I guess that is as far as we will ever get with this debate.

Call me a purist if you want to, but I absolutely hate any sort of FUD! I just cannot stand it, because somewhere there is some important person who's gonna believe it and then it's gonna lock down a lot of other people. Example, because so many stupid-ass businesses and schools in Denmark buy into that f*c*i*g lie that is Microsoft's "Get The Facts" propaganda (Or Get The FUD as I say!), we might be less locked down into the Windows crap.

I still don't see how I am spreading FUD since I am a member of the OSS community and have contributed myself. I was not trying to be simply say bad things about the FSF or anything else, just expressing an opinion but whatever. Maybe you have a different definition of FUD then I do.

[Vogateer]

I'd agree. I see FUD being used for all sorts of things where fear, uncertainty, and doubt have nothing to do with it. A member of the open source community may obviously be wrong, but they're not trying to sow FUD to stop people from using linux, they're just rightfully concerned about how a new license will affect their beloved OS.