Well, I guess we each have our priorities. I care and individual users' software freedom (Shortened: freedom), especially since we live in a world where users' digital rights are increasingly being taken away from them. If you see this as zealotism or paranoia, don't take my word for this, send an email to information at eff dot org and ask if it's true or not. Because with the DMCA in the USA, by putting DRM into the Tivo, it's automatically ILLEGAL to reverse engineer that DRM, to figure out whether this Tivo "black box" actually sends out information on what you're doing, if you as a user is concerned about that sort of stuff. Sure, it's not a lot of people that would do that, but the whole point is, that the people who want to do that, should be assured the right to be able to do so.CptnObvious999 wrote: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.Tsuroerusu wrote: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.CptnObvious999 wrote: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.
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, well if you don't see how you're spreading FUD, let's go through the meaning of FUD.CptnObvious999 wrote: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.Tsuroerusu wrote: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.
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
If you put all those together, you get something interesting. So let's take a sentence "FUD is being spread about XYZ", with the combination of Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, would in my mind mean something in the area of uncertainty about certain things about XYZ, causing fear and doubt around XYZ, which could make people hesistant to approach XYZ, and use it etc. etc. etc.
Wikipedia states this about FUD:
"Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear."
......
"As Eric S. Raymond writes: "The idea, of course, was to persuade buyers to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. After 1991 the term has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon.""
By you saying:
This is not correct, it contributes to the already large pool of faulty information about GPLv3 out there, it's always the untrue information that gets written about in the media, and always from the most negative point of view as possible. If the majority of people who read about GPLv3, get incorrect information, which they assume is true, and sees GPLv3 as a negative thing because of that incorrect information, then the FUD campaign of our enemies have worked. This is not a conspiracy of mine to get more people behind GPLv3, but I personally hate when I make a decision based on inaccurate information (Hint hint, people buying Windows because they BELIEVE that it's a better operating system), and I hate when other people do it, because for some reason, it always seem to be the influential people who base decisions on non-valid facts.CptnObvious999 wrote: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.
I hope you understood at least a little bit of that rant.
