@@elultimodiscipulo3116 Porque Microsoft ha sido el mayor contribuidor en GitHub del proyecto Linux. Mirálo tú mismo. Esa guerra murió hace tiempo. Recuerda también que Microsoft no hace cosas gratis, su terminal sigue siendo mierda. Y no controla el mundo de servidores.
I wonder if Linus still holds the same position today what with spyware being hardwired into the chips themselves. It seems The FSF was correct after all for being suspicious about such dirty deals.
Mustapha Rashiduddin I think the free software foundation and Richard Stallman have a bunch of resources on this stuff. Just look it up, there's a lot of spying and backdoors going on in modern technology.
@@PsycosisIncarnated I'm calling people like linus and open source "reasonable" because they call people like me extremist. These people have been repeatedly betrayed by corporate garbage for something as simple as software. RMS for all his autism was right all along yet people fail to recognize it.
@@senselessnothing you're still on RUclips tho? I mean don't et me wrong. I'm trying to delete my Gmail account soon and have left most social media. Plus stopped using proprietary OS and non free software. But yeah. We're still on RUclips here man :p We can't deny the wealth of knowledge RUclips has brought us. I get what rms is on about as well
@@senselessnothing but it has to be made known. He's not a coder. He figures coding to be a charity only...it has to give something back to the developer as well.. or else he will just be a starving artist.
I have so many mixed feelings about this: One point of view: I don't understand the FSF's point of view... If you don't like the Hardware that doesn't let you change the software running on it.. just don't use it. As long as the software is open source what is the issue? Another point of view: companies like Intel and AMD that supply almost all of the CPUs around the world have firmware embedded in the hardware that cannot be changed plus secret processing cores that have access to both network card and memory, meaning they can just get all of your data as long as you're connected to the internet. So someone has to stop these companies from doing whatever they want in our Computers
The latter is an excellent point and why ideally the concept of free software NEEDS to include the hardware, there's also blobs on ROMs in cellphones for example that do shady things beyond the view or control of whatever OS you're running on top of it. Problem is hardware is REALLY REALLY hard and a REALLY expensive hobby to get into so it's not as popular as software, that's why in practice it's difficult for there to be virtually any free hardware options
@@liquidsnake6879 No, it's a terrible point. Intel Management Engine does not run Linux and there's not much you can do to force them to give you control. Same applies to firmware on phones regardless of what license Linus uses for his software. Y'all are whining about yesterday's war, not tomorrow's battle
The FSF is actively crusading against the very concept of proprietary software, that is the whole ethos of the FSF, that's why they exist. To allow Tivoization or any other loopholes by which companies who would like to use Free Software get to do it whilst locking down their users to proprietary chains would betray the entire point of the FSF.
linus schows the fundamental differences in the point of view between opensource and free software. the focus of opensource (and in this case here Linus to) is the freedom of the manufacturer over the freedom of the user/owner - even if the manufacturer use this freedom to harm the freedom of the user - while the free software movement have the oposid point of view, that the freedom of the owner/user is more important then the freedom of the manufacturer. and locking down a device to changes for user, but allow the manufactuerer to change a system is harmfull (sadly almost every smartphone runs this way today)
Most devices have unlockable bootloaders which sidestep this restriction but unfortunately some devices don't have them. It's also unclear what a custom ROM can do that a stock ROM can't, due to binary blobs. What is clear, is that there are some things custom software can't do without discovering an exploit first.
Stallman was ahead of his time. In the next phase of AI and biometric identification, we will want 100% transparency in the source code, otherwise what do you imagine is going to happen to our freedoms and independent consciousness. It is not a pretty picture. Have to give credit to Linus, the greatest engineer of all time, but as he admits, he is not a visionary. In the end, he will likely be helping to solve the privacy problems using free software. He will come around because he is a rational guy.
Imagine the scenario Linus is describing. You purchase a networked device whose software you cannot change. The vendor, however, has total freedom to inspect and modify it. After allowing it into your home and using it, malware is installed over the network without your knowledge. You cannot see or remove this change, and it would be illegal to do so. If you ever learn of it, you are faced with the decision of using a compromised product or disabling a device that you paid for.
As Linus poinned out, the fsf's position is that if someone (in your example, the vendor) has the right to change it, than anyone has that right. So if you don't want the malicious patch, you have a right to refuse it. If you bought that software, you have the right to modify it. Edit: grammar
I want to change hardware as much as software, I need the tools and specifications to be open to doing it. anybody who locks down the system is not in my friends list.
If you use free software on the hardware you sell, then users must be able to modify that software as they want, what is the problem here? FSF is 100% right here, you can not restrict user's freedom in any way.
tbh while i agree more with the fsf, torvalds does have a point and i do think it should've been discussed more thoroughly when the gpl v3 was being made
If you buy hardware it is your hardware you should be able to make what ever changes you want to it. Now as for the Tivo issue when Tivo was being rented out to people by cable company's not sold rented then yea i think locking the hardware down is a must. But if you buy it its your Tivo do what the heck you want with it if you break it its yours so what.
Agreed, that's why I think Linus is right. Nobody nowadays is forced to use none free software, we now have a choice thanks to Stallman and Linus so calling Corporation evil is obsolete. People can choose to run Freesiftware or nonFree.
Oh please I used to think he (Richard Stallman) was nuts talking about "freedom" in software but now with Google being ran by SJW beta CUCKS and censoring free speech (including videos giving sound advice to people going through depression) yet monitizing child abusers like Daddyofive, he doesn't sound so crazy afterall
@@deathangel523 the usual full-stack free software setup I've seen is running a Thinkpad X60 with libreboot and Trisquel GNU/Linux. The X60 was released in _2006_ . Most newer motherboards have proprietary BIOS and don't allow the used to install his/her own BIOS. Not only that, but proprietary drivers are also the only option for a lot of people. The acceptance of proprietary drivers in Linux (the kernel) among its developers is, I think, a big contributing factor to the lack of ability to use free software.
There's nothing wrong with GPL v3 it merely closes loopholes that corporations can use to label themselves "Free" whilst still shipping proprietary secret code no one outside their firm can read. Becomes a problem for Linus because his Kernel is widely used by such corporations, but it is entirely within the original mission of the FSF, it's just Linus that sadly isn't.
There is a lot of things wrong with GPL v3 that Linus points out, i.e. it enables, FSF in particular, to revoke your right to the software if you are not using it the way they want. Also, FSF is an immoral fucking collection on bigoted digital commies, and their version of digital despotism, subterfuge and coercion is no less evil than the despotism of surveillance capitalism. They all need to be brought under control by government regulation, or we're fucked. Seems though, it's a bit too late for at least USA and China on this, which are just neocommunist and neofascist social orders. So, it's cyberpunk feudalism for them. There's hope in europe where democratic decision making still works inspite European Union's version of totalitarian communism and things like the European Central Bank, WEF and major (in particular green-left) MEPs saying openly China and the social credit system is the future model for a society and "you will own nothing and be happy". Yeah, no. But, just like the UK political movements protecting their citizens best interests, basic human rights, such as private property rights (UN Declaration of Human Rights define it as a incontrevertible human right) and national sovreignity will lead to EU's dissollution eventually. Or, it'll just implode into another pan-european war after the war in Ukraine is done, as it's now a illegitimate (against its founding agreement and principal law which was to never be violated) a pan-european debt alliance. Which, historically has always lasted less than a couple of decades and ended only after nearly a half a century of continent ravaging warfare. So, yeah. WW3 is coming. But it ain't this bullshit with a neofascist russian tzar falling on his sword as his last dying action. Or, china anything. Their capacity to actually do warfare is even less than Russia and they're far more corrupt. Unlike Russia which has been training and prepping up its military through out the past 15 years. China hasn't got a single soldier that would have ever even seen a live fire situation where someone is firing angrily at them. Their last soldier to have seen combat is around 75-80 years old at this point. So, that's not a military that fights anything. :D
Having any sort of license is super autistic. Literally just publish the source code for anybody do with as they please. You don't need some long license written by some pedophile telling you that it's OK
***** That's not what control is. Having control over something or someone means having power to change what the thing or person one is controlling does or is able to do. If you can only write a software once and then don't have the power to change it, you don't have control over its users. Note that I'm not saying that it's a good thing. I'm just saying that I agree with the FSF's notion of that not qualifying as control. It still doesn't give the users freedom. But it doesn't actively restrict it which would be the case if anyone but the user had the power to change it. The user themself not being able to change it just makes the situation worse and the user entirely helpless as they are not able to change the software to no longer permit changes by others.
***** I don't get what you mean in your last paragraph. I suppose you're saying: "Having the ability to change [the software on the device] doesn't mean anything [because users won't do so if they don't have the source code of the original software]." Is this correct? "If the read only program is open source, and you have a way of checking the whether the binary version of the open source matches with the embedded one you have, it's totally fine." Really? What if you find out that the spyware part is in the published source code? Remember that spyware isn't necessarily illegal. Heck, the are a shit ton of politicians proposing to require manufacturers to install spyware. "It's the same proprietary vs OS discussion." No. Just because something is open source, that doesn't mean you have the right to change it. And it especially doesn't mean you have the right to share your changes with others. That's why the distinction between OSS and free software is so important to many.
***** "actually we all use spyphones" That's precisely my point. And because I can change things about it, I did. For example by using xprivacy. I wouldn't care too much about my computer mining bitcoin in the background. That may cost you a little money and wear your hardware down a bit faster but it's not much money, most hardware is thrown away before it dies anyways (actually, I never did that but a lot of people do), and such software is usually created in such a way that the user's work isn't slowed down significantly so they're less likely to reinstall their operating system because their computer has become slow, thereby deleting the malware. I just don't see how it would be that much harm is done in such a way. What bothers me much more are actions against the users. "Not giving users the freedom to change the code is the company's loss, not mine." Do you mean because you wouldn't do it or because you wouldn't care about its legality? If the latter is the case, you'd probably care if you got caught. Would feel really bad and unfair to have to pay a fine or even go to prison for changing a program you use to make it fit your needs better, wouldn't it?
Personally I like to use free software as much as possible. But as long as the user has a choice of what to use, and they understand the differences between the options, they should be free to make their own decision. The FSF seems to disagree with that, but at the same time they're a driving force between the option to use free software at all. So they do have an important role in the community.
Nothing really wrong with the FSFs view, if someone can change it that someone should include the person who bought it, simple as, i fail to understand the motive behind Torvald's disagreement
Flip that around for a minute, this means that if I buy the commercial hardware and change it to suit my personal needs, I can be thrown in a cage for violating the commercial contract. You don't think this is more fanatical.
The funny thing is that even in this comment section, you still see the same absurd arguments defending the FSF ideology, either pointing out "examples" which don't exist and never happen, concepts which don't matter to 99.9% of population, things which are unrelated to FSF completely, and of course misrepresenting the actual purpose of features (most commonly data collection). The general idea sounds good at first glance, but once you start looking into it, you realise it's all extreme idealism, and once you really go deeper, you have to come to the same conclusion as Torvalds: Some of these people are clinically insane.
The way i see it, in the age of personal tracking where everyone has digital devices and nobody knows what's running on them, where you can and are digitally fingerprinted cross-browser and cross-devices and your browing data is sold without your knowledge to advertising agencies, the FSFs original point has been completely vindicated, maybe you think the dictators of your software and benign and so tolerate them, that's your opinion, many of us like to ask questions and dig deeper and if they're hiding it from us, it only makes us even more suspicious
This is not as practical as you are saying. I cannot take an unmodified GPLv3 product and include it in my proprietary product. The license is viral. This isn't about me making changes to something and not releasing it. Stalman is incorrect in his assertions. The Apache foundation has contributed more to software development than the GNU foundation. That is the OSS vs FF argument right there. Keep in mind if it wasn't for Torvalds "GNU Linux" would of been DOA.
Richard Stallman is the father of the open source software movement. If Linus admitted how he was inspired by Stallman to release his kernel under the GNU GPL in 1992 instead of taking credit for an entire community of operating systems which he contributed a Kernel.
This is one area where I couldn't agree with Linus more. I have no problem with proprietary code even, I think it's good to have both free software and proprietary software working together to let businesses protect their assets and offer flexibility. And consumers can use services that work. Now turning free software into proprietary software is sketchy, and all the big tech companies do that to one extant or another. Heck I just found out that OS X uses the GCC for instance. But I fall into the same camp as Bruce Perens, author of the Open Source definition, on this debate. Proprietary code isn't bad, and it's actually good in many ways so businesses can work with free software while meeting their various needs. I know this is a hot topic. And I'll get called the devil by hardcore Stallmanites, but I agree with Linus.
I agree. There are many legitimate use-cases for locking down the hardware without compromising the social contract that Linus is talking about. Every security-relevant piece of hardware is such a case. The company I work for manufactures medical devices. Not being able to change the software that runs on the hardware is a security feature. So we use TPMs to lock down the software. That doesn't mean that we cannot contribute to open source software. We can still publish our source code. But we absolutely need to ability to prevent 3rd party software from being run on our devices.
I don't understand the basic premise Linus (and really all those opposing GPLv3) adhere to. Why should anyone who sells me a piece of hardware have the right to tell me what I can and can't do with it? And if your answer is "They shouldn't.", then how can you justify allowing a hardware company to use GPLv2 software on their devices which violate this principle? If TiVo puts GPLv2 software on a device and sells it to me, how is it NOT automatically a violation of the GPLv2 license if I'm not allowed to change that GPLv2 software on that device? Honestly, most of the arguments I hear boil down to a ridiculously simplistic "that's hardware, GPL is software" perspective, as if there's no relationship. If Linus truly believes what he's saying, then Linux shouldn't use the straight GPLv2 - it should use an amended version that stipulates to that idea, that if a hardware vendor chooses to, they can limit your rights to use Linux on that device to the ways they decide you can. Which of course isn't even possible, because such a license amendment would be fundamentally contradictory to blanket statements that are deliberately and explicitly in place in the GPLv2 ... which is the point.
hamiltino oh - so you're just opposing the whole thought process and business flow of open source, not commenting specifically on what I commented. Understood (and disagree, but I understand that position ).
David Bucci I'm not opposing open source i am explaining why their is a reluctance to adopt open source practices. Maybe if you add the two together you can see why open source ideologies need some flexibility.
Well, I would like to see more videos and read more about this guy, from a first perspective, it's very hard to me to see what's the difference between locking the software and locking the hardware. There are ethically both wrong because of the exact same reasons. The GPL licenses do not allow you to take a GPL licensed software, make a change and redistribute it as a binary. That would be against the ethics of sharing and communitie improvements. That would take out your freedoms, your freedom to understand what YOUR product is doing what it's doing, and the ability to modify that product to mke it better or fit it to your purposes. If you make locked software you shouldn't be able to use free software, because you are using the community work, but not giving your corresponding part to the communitie.
+Peter Castle Agreed . I can't think why Linus would want to support corporations who restrict consumers from their own hardware . He also didn't complain about secure-boot even though there are now lower priced tablets and laptops that will only boot Windows because of a signed key . It's clear that Windows was benefiting from locking the system down to a single version of Windows . You would think that the owner of Linux would oppose that , but nope . I think Linus may be afraid of confronting big corporations - Maybe there are financial reasons - I dont know .
+SPPV why does it matter? if I want a Linux computer, I can buy computer built for Linux. The only problem I have is when I am building a computer and the computer has built in secure boot enabled automatically at least. When it comes to Hardware, that I am building it should be more free.
***** What about people who cant build their own machines who now wont have a chance in running anything but windows . They may want to try linux but find they cant boot the distro they want . Maybe they cant afford a dedicated linux box .
That being the case, they are gona have to find a job to earn the money so they can leave windows. In the mean time, don't put anything on your computer, that you don't want Microsoft to know about if you don't trust them.For a while, I was in that camp. Today, I am going to modify my computer to be Linux ready because, I am not going to use windows 10 unless, they stop forcing their updates on the users that is just ridiculous.
***** I never went forward (to 8.1 or 10) after Windows 7 , which I only use for playing 3d games as win32/win64 is the only real gaming system for PC . Now with forced-updates , I dunno what I'll do if games drop support for 7 . Hopefully someone will release an aftermarket app to block updates . I've got a couple of Linux machines , and they're just so much more fun/liberating with regards to general computing . Hopefully with steam supporting linux and PS4 based on BSD , more game developers will want to push Linux or maybe another unix os for a games system . Android has shown the potential for gaming on the linux kernel with low power devices . If devs worked on gaming compatibility/directx api for wine , in time Linux could become an even better gaming system than windows as with Linux you could have distributions built from the ground up for a gaming platform . It would be more memory efficient and have far less background tasks running (Maybe even a low level virtualizer for vt/amd-v extensions so a desktop OS could be started from within a linux gaming os {or just dual boot}) . Also Linux provides good support for running different API's like Wine and backwards compatibility can always be managed with different sets of shared libraries . It's about time consoles and PC's merged . If only it was easier to squeeze a PC's components into a small case that doesn't waste any space . Small cases for matx boards and full size gpus with riser cards and powerful psu's cost a fortune . I might think of trying to build my own with acryllic or something , but it'll probably look cheap/bad .
Same issues as Debian vs FSF. Debian doesn’t ship any nonfree software, but because users can fairly easily install nonfree software (except you can fairly easily install nonfree software on FSF approved distros) it isn’t an approved FSF distro. My personal opinion is that FSF wants similar controls over “libre” software as other software manufactures hold over their closed source software.
if you use GPLv2 (not GPLv2+) you must tell the other side to paste the license in their work. If you use GPLv2+, the other side won't give you money, but still comply with the former. If you use GPLv3 you must ask the other side to give you money for your work (legal lawyers and stuff)
I tried to post the link of the lecture but youtube won't alow me unfortunately. In it he demonized most methods of commerce and stated the only way that was ethical is by asking for donations online. Here is the problem I see with the free as in freedom movement. If I write something do I not have the right to say how I'm going to allow someone to use my product? What If I don't want someone to copy change or modify my work and sell it as their own or give it away.
Actually the GNU license is invalid because it disallows fair use. You can not license a copy right which by default includes fair use exceptions then claim people are being licensed the right to use a copy right but forbid derivatives and transformations (fair use)!? That is called deceptive advertising?
Personally, I full on respect both Torvalds and Stallman. They are both awesome pioneers along with many MANY others... I'm a bit torn hearing how this disagreement came to light, publicly. I bet Bill Gates is having a party after hearing this. I think publicly suggesting others are on drugs and insane is a bit heavy handed :-(
Arguments and disagreements can be stressful for people with aspergers especially when beliefs are deeply rooted. Its important to understand the importance of dialog in a disagreement. That its comparable with people of differeing ideas of going to an art mueseum and talking about say piccaso. That 2 people who are computer scientists can have very different ideas of implementation strategies both being correct but very different in strategy.
This issue is very complex and highly intellectual far beyond the simple "tech" aspect. I would say Mr. Stallman is more on the idealist side of the spectrum and Linus more on the practical one.
This is great and all, but if I buy something, I should be able to do what I want with it (IMO). If you establish a practice that 'allows' an entity sole control of a product, then the user is not in control; they are at the mercy of that entity, what's more is that there is 'nothing' to keep that entity in check. If you buy a device without sole control (there are plenty of uninformed people out there that will buy it)you're rewarding and cont perpetuating the idea that it's ok to be less free.
John O'Shaughnessy even though I think Linus is right in the video, the mere definition of freedom implies you cannot choose your limit your own freedom. But Stallman is a little bit crazy, that's right too.
This man could have been as rich as any of those tech billionaires but he chose to give his genius for free. Red hat made billions from his work and he got nothing.
Can anyone here say they are running a system on FSF solely? none have worked for me! ... connection issues etc etc ... yet even a small Ubuntu port (Linux-Lite) works perfectly out of the box ...
Linus got it right. Tivo cannot allow to run not authenticated code, it is not because they want it, but because they are bind with legal obligations with cable companies and drm requirements. Do you consider everything as toys? I wish I could use GPLv3, but I cannot. Imagine to allow to play with your money on you bank account.
The purists and idealists make valuable contributions sometimes, but they are purists and idealists at the end of the day... They tend to be good at forming small super-intolerant minorities and making everyone feel bad for being naughty :D
Wouldn't earlier GPL license versions have also made a constraint like "if you want to use this GPL software in your software, then you have to license that software under GPL thus making it open source"? (and open source software is not as commercially viable). And isn't any license putting a constraint on usage. Otherwise what's the point of a license at all? Are you against the idea of a license?
So what does the user benefits if Linus gets the source code, but the user cannot exerciser any freedom? Good for Linus but bad for the user. Free software was always about not the code developer. In fact, the GPL v2 doesn't requre them to give the source code to Linus, but to the user. They could in theory only give the code to user on demand.
You are free to use the source that Linus gets, once again if you abide by GPLv2. That is how you benefit. What the FSF is pushing is basically "you can't make devices that prohibit running other software than the derivative software that you made". That is what he is saying. The user benefits from the whole "open source" paradigm remain the same.
I agree with Linus Torvals in this point. While FOSS is the best option for the common user, prorpietary software is ok for big companies that can afford to make their own programs. People is free to decide what license they want to use on their software, and to decide what license they want in the software they use. There is no reason to force anything on anyone, but to educate people on the pro/cons of using a certain license.
MaddXav "proprietary software is OK for big companies that can afford to make their own programs" - you do not understand what you are talking about ... big companies that can make their software USE FREE software, look at at facebook, amazon, google ... you name it. Anything big does not use proprietary software.
He told me a story about one of his clients that were developing something and because the company used MySQL for some of the product the investor pulled out of the deal. It was a 10 million dollar deal. This happened because companies looking to do business need to be able to monetize their software. Otherwise they won't invest the money or resources. In any regard this is a complex problem and I don't think it can be solved with extreme and simple solutions. I believe a balance is needed.
I was using gNewSense as my main OS for two days on my laptop computer. Everything worked fine except for wifi. That was okay because I could use an ethernet card and then that was fine. However, when I started to use the built in web browser it started to break apart when I was browsing RUclips and stuff (Due to the nature of the Google+ JavaScript framework being directly embedded onto the page, the browser I was using it with did not function well.) Other than that the OS was pretty comfortable, but also had trouble installing LinCity and CodeBlocks which where some fine pieces of software that I used through out the past. I will indeed go back to the gNewSense OS, but not right now since I can not use it for my programming homework and I am busy. I thought that the OS was an astronomically remarkable piece of software because not that many people where working on it and it was isolated, yet I could do many things on it... We are not there yet, but maybe when I become more savvy at coding, then I can join them. But right now I am tiny and can`t use it.
protip: watch youtube videos in vlc. Also install smtube for a lightweight youtube search gui that will then play videos in vlc. vlc won't show youtube's ads.
Well, all I'll say is this: It is the Free SOFTWARE Foundation. As long as TiVo released their modifications to the kernel software, I'm really not sure how the FSF can (with a straight face) argue that the hardware should (essentially) also be open-sourced as well.
After trying to legally navigate the minefield of "open source" licensing issues for small-scale commercial embedded devices, I can understand why small companies turn to Windows CE. Distribution providers need to start offering a "paid-for" version of their offering which wraps all software content in a single commercial license payment or royalty. This will probably require Linus Torvolds to represent the "open source" movement (not just the kernel) in order to open a dialogue with the big boys such as Oracle, Apache Foundation, Qt and so on.
Linus is right about one thing, Linux wouldn't be as commercially viable were it licensed under the GPLv3. Controlling how you use Linux would likely just piss off commercial vendors who would probably just end up forking old versions of Linux or using FreeBSD.
GPL V3 actually makes it even worse by including a claus that forces all software written for it use gpl v3 to prevent licensing stacking. So lets say I make X program, and you make a program that interacts and changes X program, well then that peice of software also has to use GPL V3. Now this claus has not been enforced and RIchard pretends it doesn't exist any more, but if you go in and read gpl v3 and go through it, there it is in broken english and it regards this whole section that linus is addressing here. So you can't have a base program that uses GPL v3 that downloads a program and uses it within itself with a seperate and different license, it is not worded this way but yeah it contains to how the BLOB section is written within GPL v3. V3 takes away freedom of license usage which is why Richard wanted to push it so hard on the linux kernal so it would combat all other rival licenses and prevent anyone from using any other license then his own because Richard doesn't believe in freedom of choice, he constantly says its a illusion of choice not a freedom of choice. His understanding of freedom and most peoples is completely different. I have contacted Richard stallman several times before about which license of his I could use that lined up with my case usage and I found that none of his would and he tried to tell me that I don't value freedom if I don't use one of his even if I make my own. He tried saying my ideas are evil and infringe on others freedoms, when my end goal was to create a store front of software to be sold without collecting user data digitally and distrobute it in a form that included both the source code and binaries and he didn't like this idea at all. I said but you said you want a system free as in freedom not free as in price and that is what I was trying to make, he still didn't like that idea at all because it ment that I would profit and I was looking for a solution to make people pay for the software before downloading it, he very much didn't like that at all. I asked him how can I make money off of this and still have it give people freedom? And the only method he gave me was if I put it on physical media and then sold that, but the physical media has to comply with FSF standards, and he couldn't give me 1 example of 1 that did but that was back in 2010ish, and I really didn't want to go that avenue. It boiled down to him suggesting a donation system, I told him I already had one in and no one has done it in over 10 years. Not a single person donated but thousands of downloads. How am I suppose to survive off that? Its not that I don't value freedom, I do, its that I also need to survive to have the freedom that I do have, and I found that the only way he really profits is off merch, and book sales, and that he is not the tech genius that everyone thinks he really is, he gets information from his inner circle.
Well, I love the idea of GNU, and Linux, because I can have now a UNIX-like environment on my PC to study a lot of things: C, C++, perl, python, etc. You see, Microsoft doesn't give you any of those, you have to pay fat dollars for their .net Visual Studio. However, I think Mr. Linus Torvalds became so famous, that he became kind of like the third big guy in computers aside from Gates and Jobs. I agree though, Mr. Torvalds actually created something, as opposed to trading others ideas
What TiVO did with the kernel code seems quite normal to me. It was clearly intended to restrict the final usage of ITS hardware that it developed with ITS money. But it could have been done for security reason. If you sell security products, you want to make sure that your patched kernel is being executed on your hardware, and not a malicious code. Should Linux switch to GPL v3, I'm convinced a lot of companies would abandon it for less restrictive licensed OS (the BSD family for example...)
How does it not make sense? The GPL is supposed to protect consumers from software creators taking away their rights and harming them. Software that can be changed only from the creator is no different from what proprietary software does to harm it's users on a mass scale. Developers can easily update their devices with malware (as in functionality harmful to the user).
We've seen many companies have to find a new business model because the commercial software industry has come under attack by this line of thinking and there really is no need for it. Plus there are many good things that DRM can do also. It can ensure that viruses don't infiltrate a system, it can be used to create a very secure digital currency that is far easier to use the bitcoin is, and it can be used to protect peoples privacy by ensuring that their downloaded emails can't be stolen.
I like Linus torvald but I have to agree with Richard stallman to prevent the corporations that having absolute control over Society we have to have the ability to challenge them
My major point and my concern is making an industry that people working in it will have the ability to make a living. I think DRM can be a very useful tool in making that happen. Granted the tools that have been provided have either been too restrictive or too buggy with not enough safe guards. Granted there are aspects of DRM that have been down right annoying to work with because it locks up content people have licensed legally. Those sorts of things however can be overcome.
your comment made me investigate this interesting subject a bit further, thx. I'm confused by one thing though, how come FSF approves BSD licenses if the licenses allow for re-releasing modified versions on a proprietary license? wouldn't that be against FSF principals? your last comment is very true, it's not really a purchase, it's more of a rental with a one time rental fee. they still own it, even more when they can change it at will, over the internet.
Linus is wrong, their position makes complete sense with respect to their goals and values, it just isn't that practical. Hardware requires massive amounts of upfront capital investment and thus requires scale. The FSF license simply isn't practical when it comes to hardware.
Clinically insane? Ok, so, when the vendor can change something, on request, for example, of GHCQ or NSA, and I cannot revert that change, then Linus is fine with that ... I call Linus insane, on this one. He has done great things, but he lives in a fantasy world ...
Hans Carpenter Says the guy who uses Google's SaaS. Seriously, give it a rest. Your tired diatribes of distorted freedom are boring and old. Yes, clinically insane that there are people like you in the world; who believe in forcing your own definition of freedom on others. True freedom is using what you want, not using what others believe is ethical. if (google_user == TRUE) { printf( "shut the fuck up about free software" ); } Hypocrite.
***** . >True freedom is using what you want. Exactly, I want to use that graphics card, however, I do not want to use that 250mb driver, I prefer the 150k driver, which is free software and comes without bloated BS userland crap that loads when my OS starts up. As for google, they both use and support free software... so I do not get your childish response. Congrats on your "if" statement! Here we have one of a "hacker"!
Hans Carpenter Your attempt to ridicule falls on deaf ears. "As for google, they both use and support free software..." -Yeah, so you can freely modify and use your own version of RUclips, then? Can you freely modify and use your own Google+? You can modify their code to keep Google from complying with the NSA? Is it not your hardware that accesses their systems? Do you not agree to their license (which is proprietary) when using their SaaS? You're a hypocrite. Worse than that, you're trying to justify how Google's proprietary services are okay because they "support free software." Which completely negates the FSF and your nonexistent argument. Come back when you know what you're talking about.
***** Ok, feel free to call me hypocrite all you want, I think I am free to use the services I want. Of course, I would prefer to use 100% FSF, however, I cannot - because we have not come up with FSF solutions for everything, yet. The day I will be able to, I will be glad, in the meantime, I use what is at my disposal. I maintain, binary blobs are evil, I have to use them in some of my computers because there is no alternative, yet. You cannot, from day 1 expect to have FSF solutions for everything, however, it remains a goal of our community. The only binary blob I use on my computer is from nvidia, because, like Linus said on numerous occasions, nvidia suck. One day, we will have a FSF alternative, until then, I am condemned to use this BS. I do not think that makes me a hypocrite, a realist, maybe ...
First of all, the point is not bad things can happen in this case, but that you have absolutely no recourse. Abuse is codified into the law. If you look a little closer this is different than a doctor becoming a murderer. Secondly, yes, we should imagine and discuss the worse possible cases in everything we do, debate them, and consider of the worst case scenarios does, infact, outweigh the overall benefits.
He didn't say that everyone that supports free software is insane. Linux uses GPL 2 because Torvalds himself supports free software. Torvalds simply believes that software licenses should attempt to control only software, not the hardware on which it runs. So, as long as one has access to the software, and can modify it to run on some other hardware, Torvalds believes there is nothing unethical about using digital signatures to prevent running modified copies of Linux This is his point of view
uhh actually linus stance on closed source hardware is "fuck you". Check the middle finger it gave to nvidia when they ended up adding the whole driver support inside cards, and linux kernel was left out, by left out i mean adding real generic and legacy code and no enabling specific card features (such as the ones you'd find in closed source code, being the missing half bridge required by the card to run 100%). I think Linus really meant: open source code licenses the software running on any machine. That machine is yours and open Source restores that ability. His stance is "hardware vendor if you plan on opensourcing stuff, welcome", "hardware vendor if you don't support open source, fuck you". I think the hardware itself has no relevance at all since the hardware in some countries is entirely yours (can't be sued by the provider if you don't use the hardware as they wish you'd). So openSource gpl v2 exploits that effectively turning the machine you own, into yours truly. "Torvalds believes there is nothing unethical about using digital signatures to prevent running modified copies of Linux", uhh what? context? Security related, piracy related? AFAIK Linus supports the ability to write your own code, if you reverse engineer code you are a whore and a cheater: www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/11/torvalds_attack/ “What Larry is not fine with, is somebody writing a free replacement by just reverse-engineering what he did. Larry has a very clear moral standpoint: ‘You can compete with me, but you can’t do so by riding on my coat-tails. Solve the problems on your own, and compete honestly. Don't compete by looking at my solution.’ And I agree 100% with him. (note, I am a dev, and I code a lot, bottom up, top down, etc) How is it possible he supports enterprise from using closed source drivers, and at the same time he hates enterprises that do so? (nvidia incident) I think you need context. To me Linus Torvalds is the old real programmer that honours real coders, and spites cheap coders. (or their attitude)
If the "malware" is a patch to free software then they have to make the source code public, by license. Which means that it is in no way covert. Your problem isn't the software license, it's the same problem that consumers always face: caveat emptor. If you're really concerned about it then you should be more selective about who you're buying your hardware from. But it's not something that software developers should concern themselves with.
bloozism: agreed, however I can understand both viewpoints. GPL v3 isnt better then GPL v2 or the other way around imho, it totally depends on the circumstances and intention of the particular project.
According to the FSF, gas stations should be allowed to tamper with the software embedded in gas pumps, people should be allowed to edit the contents of their credit cards' chips to whatever, and medical devices might be running who knows what OS because it's apparently a horrible thing to lock down the hardware you've spent millions developing.
Here is my point though. I think it is very dubious to call a system that in the way it is structured prevents the authors of software the ability to make a living off of their work more ethical then someone who chooses to charge for their work and puts in features to make sure they can be payed. What I'm talking about is that free as in freedom in its current form has unintended consequences. And those consequenses will eventually lead to the demise of the software industry.
Well Open Source is a term used by most people today to encompass all software where the source code is distributed along with or in place of the binary. It generally includes the GPL and all other. That is the understanding that the world has of open source. Rightly or wrongly that's what most people believe because that's how it was explained to them. However, in terms of MySQL rightly or wrongly whether or not you don't see a problem is not the issue. Its the perception that's the issue.
To understand this position you have to understand what the problem with free is. Even free as in freedom rather then free as in no price has implications. I believe that the open source community has to come to a point where there must be a balance between open source and commercial if it wants to maintain a vibrant industry. I don't have a problem with the OS being free as its a point that prevents monopolies from forming. However, I do have a problem with applications being all made free.
To sell my software i use my own licence if i write a software for use on a campus or at google, i use LGPL if i write a software i don't care about much i use GPL or BSD
When people perceive a problem they will not use it and you will have a monumentally difficult time to getting them to adopt your software. Its the same argument with DRM. Rightly or wrongly companies want the piece of mind DRM gives them and as a result you will have a monumental time convincing them that DRM doesn't work. You will there for see future attempts at this technology. My suggestion here in dealing with it is to make a DRM that is acceptable to everyone.
If you ever wanted the definition between a liberal and a leftist its this video. "Freedom of choice" above all else even if its the freedom to be enslavement.
I hate this term mixing, locking a ROM is not enslavement and using a Mac or whatever is not a jail. RMS is dogmatic, whether he jokes about it or not he is dogmatic and his idea to force others to do as he wishes is but a power fantasy. The FSF kills and defunds projects that lack development power or use proprietary parts (see the Debian debacle or Savene) RMS himself especially barges in to berate people who disagree with him. If you feel that it's fine if someone retains control of the software he sells then you buy that software if not you look for an open alternative, what is the problem? There is no enslavement there, if you dislike a locked ROM piece of hardware you don't use it. There are always alternatives, even to Android.
You think software doesn't have a cost to production? Just because you can put software on a server and copy it cheaply doesn't mean that software doesn't have a cost to produce. People write software. It takes thousands of man hours sometimes of coding. It takes graphics artists. Sometimes musicians to produce software. Linux itself has been coded painstakingly by thousands of people. Now those people have volunteered their time.
Look, no software is 100% secure regardless of how many people you have trying to find bugs and fix exploits. However, thats not where the majority of the security is aimed towards. Most companies don't use things like DRM or copy protection to guard against other programmers. They make it to guard against software being too easy to copy so that most people will have to pay for it.
FSF when device firmware resides on a flash chip inside the device: I sleep FSF when the exact same device firmware is loaded by the PC at boot: Real shit
Hence a very basic difference between Open Source and Free Software Free Software tries to discourage evil. Open Source will send teams of lawyers to defend your right to be evil.
Also though, I think in this day and age, things are -at last- moving towards hardware devices, away from computers being just a laptop/desktop. And I don't like the idea of hardware having something in it or built specifically to lock down the code so modified versions don't run on it. And as for linus's personal choice argument, that could be applied to GPL v2,which restricts peoples' usage saying any SW using it has to be open source and with that license. GPLv3 is more in the spirit of GPL.
That's the point, BSD-like license doesn't is what Linus want and tivoization doesn't hurt GPL v2, since the code gets back to the community. The lock restricted you to use a modified version on the hardware that was designed for that, it's a harware lock, not code lock. For Linus, if you can use it in another hardware, that is no problem at all. GPL v3 forces to make modifications that make this possible and for linux, there is no problem you use it, but he won't.
Solution that you talking about "how to do things", sounds more like a "concept". Source code is like a blueprint of software that will be constructed by compiled in to some machine code.
I agree, for instance drivers. I mean, yes I bought hardware and understand that not everything has copyleft, specially drivers. So that's ok, in fact I don't want to touch drivers, I trust that the company of the hardware is managing them better than I would. So yes, long live to copyleft but just at the extent that it doesn't affect the user. At least the average user, let me tell'ya, I have seen that free and open software exist due in a great proportion to the average user. So totally open source could lead to serios problems in reaching the full public due to the overdiversification.
what is "overdiversification"? And you state that you wish to "trust" hardware manufacturers with executing random code on your hardware that no one can see or read outside their corporation that's fine, the FSF exists precisely because it opposes that naive worldview and understands corporations will be corporations and will abuse any power they can get over you. YOU might not want to read the drivers, but other people more knowledgeable about them than you might, and nonfree blobs prevent that, there is no way to spin it into anything other than a dangerous practice that's based on faith in multinational corporations being kind enough as to not violate your rights and in a world where the NSA is a thing and Prism was a thing, for you to suggest that it's fine to "trust" corporations when you can't even trust your own government is a statement of extreme naivety. It's like allowing governments to write secret laws that are not known or disclosed to the public but can be used against you at any time they wish.
But even the OS you are applying a point where no value is given to the work of the authors of that OS because the conditions by which the licensing is given you have no ability monetize the work. Anyone who acquires the work has the right to give it to all their friends. You end up not deriving any value from the work at all.
We need Free Hardware Foundation
Let's start it
Hardware is tangible so it cannot be free.
@@eumemo4814 free means privacy. Freedom. Not price.
You mean risc v
Free computing foundation
These are two Greek Gods bickering - who have saved us from all becoming Microsoft Certified Developers.
LOL
@@RajinderYadav No its not we still have FreeBSD.
@@RajinderYadav why do you say that?
@@elultimodiscipulo3116 Porque Microsoft ha sido el mayor contribuidor en GitHub del proyecto Linux. Mirálo tú mismo. Esa guerra murió hace tiempo. Recuerda también que Microsoft no hace cosas gratis, su terminal sigue siendo mierda. Y no controla el mundo de servidores.
Nicely put
I wonder if Linus still holds the same position today what with spyware being hardwired into the chips themselves. It seems The FSF was correct after all for being suspicious about such dirty deals.
Mustapha Rashiduddin I think the free software foundation and Richard Stallman have a bunch of resources on this stuff. Just look it up, there's a lot of spying and backdoors going on in modern technology.
Stallman was right.
Stallman and his followers are retards
nah just retards... Stallman is just a commie dickhead.
@@TiTiTiTiT Jesus was a cunt too.
Would love to watch Linus and RMS debate over this argument, specially now that we need Open-Source/ Free-Software even more!
I don't want my software made by "reasonable" people, I want unreasonable people that execute their goal perfectly.
@@senselessnothing explain your position more? What do you mean by unreasonable and reasonable people?
@@PsycosisIncarnated I'm calling people like linus and open source "reasonable" because they call people like me extremist. These people have been repeatedly betrayed by corporate garbage for something as simple as software. RMS for all his autism was right all along yet people fail to recognize it.
@@senselessnothing you're still on RUclips tho?
I mean don't et me wrong. I'm trying to delete my Gmail account soon and have left most social media. Plus stopped using proprietary OS and non free software. But yeah. We're still on RUclips here man :p
We can't deny the wealth of knowledge RUclips has brought us. I get what rms is on about as well
@@senselessnothing but it has to be made known. He's not a coder. He figures coding to be a charity only...it has to give something back to the developer as well.. or else he will just be a starving artist.
This channel has some historical treasures. Thank you to you guys for speaking to Linus and Stallman and sharing their insight.
I have so many mixed feelings about this:
One point of view: I don't understand the FSF's point of view... If you don't like the Hardware that doesn't let you change the software running on it.. just don't use it. As long as the software is open source what is the issue?
Another point of view: companies like Intel and AMD that supply almost all of the CPUs around the world have firmware embedded in the hardware that cannot be changed plus secret processing cores that have access to both network card and memory, meaning they can just get all of your data as long as you're connected to the internet. So someone has to stop these companies from doing whatever they want in our Computers
That is it, conflicted choices. Summed up perfectly.
I respect Linus immensely but I do disagree with him on that. you literally described the answer to "What's the issue?" in your second point of view.
The latter is an excellent point and why ideally the concept of free software NEEDS to include the hardware, there's also blobs on ROMs in cellphones for example that do shady things beyond the view or control of whatever OS you're running on top of it. Problem is hardware is REALLY REALLY hard and a REALLY expensive hobby to get into so it's not as popular as software, that's why in practice it's difficult for there to be virtually any free hardware options
@@liquidsnake6879 No, it's a terrible point. Intel Management Engine does not run Linux and there's not much you can do to force them to give you control. Same applies to firmware on phones regardless of what license Linus uses for his software. Y'all are whining about yesterday's war, not tomorrow's battle
The FSF is actively crusading against the very concept of proprietary software, that is the whole ethos of the FSF, that's why they exist. To allow Tivoization or any other loopholes by which companies who would like to use Free Software get to do it whilst locking down their users to proprietary chains would betray the entire point of the FSF.
linus schows the fundamental differences in the point of view between opensource and free software. the focus of opensource (and in this case here Linus to) is the freedom of the manufacturer over the freedom of the user/owner - even if the manufacturer use this freedom to harm the freedom of the user - while the free software movement have the oposid point of view, that the freedom of the owner/user is more important then the freedom of the manufacturer.
and locking down a device to changes for user, but allow the manufactuerer to change a system is harmfull (sadly almost every smartphone runs this way today)
Most devices have unlockable bootloaders which sidestep this restriction but unfortunately some devices don't have them. It's also unclear what a custom ROM can do that a stock ROM can't, due to binary blobs. What is clear, is that there are some things custom software can't do without discovering an exploit first.
Stallman was ahead of his time. In the next phase of AI and biometric identification, we will want 100% transparency in the source code, otherwise what do you imagine is going to happen to our freedoms and independent consciousness. It is not a pretty picture. Have to give credit to Linus, the greatest engineer of all time, but as he admits, he is not a visionary. In the end, he will likely be helping to solve the privacy problems using free software. He will come around because he is a rational guy.
Two years old comment but that reality is coming faster and faster.
@cpong Amazing how quickly some people sell-out and go to the dark side the moment their work gets commercial / proprietary attention and validation.
+1
Linus is awesome, but calling him the greatest engineer of all time is a huge stretch.
Lol what country are you in?
You haven't had freedom in over 100 years.
Imagine the scenario Linus is describing. You purchase a networked device whose software you cannot change. The vendor, however, has total freedom to inspect and modify it. After allowing it into your home and using it, malware is installed over the network without your knowledge. You cannot see or remove this change, and it would be illegal to do so. If you ever learn of it, you are faced with the decision of using a compromised product or disabling a device that you paid for.
Linus says, use the product, fsf says, disable it
As Linus poinned out, the fsf's position is that if someone (in your example, the vendor) has the right to change it, than anyone has that right. So if you don't want the malicious patch, you have a right to refuse it. If you bought that software, you have the right to modify it.
Edit: grammar
@@Gzussss not the legal right.
@@iamlordstarbuilder5595 If the software is under the gpl license, yes, the legal right. That's what we're talking about.
@@Gzussss not under the GPLv2, as far as I understand it
I want to change hardware as much as software, I need the tools and specifications to be open to doing it. anybody who locks down the system is not in my friends list.
I agree, if I can fix my car, why can't I fix my laptop?
@@liondeluxe3834 soon you will be unable to fix both
@@Stszelec01 ouch. We talking Tesla's?
@@Zetverse any car
If you use free software on the hardware you sell, then users must be able to modify that software as they want, what is the problem here? FSF is 100% right here, you can not restrict user's freedom in any way.
I will personally donate $200,000 to the FSF if Richard Stallman would shave that damn beard...
Bump
Open source trimmer
Guess he just cares more about facial hair than funding freedom
The trimmer is not free, as such he can't use it.
now that he has cancer from vax, you can
tbh while i agree more with the fsf, torvalds does have a point and i do think it should've been discussed more thoroughly when the gpl v3 was being made
If you buy hardware it is your hardware you should be able to make what ever changes you want to it. Now as for the Tivo issue when Tivo was being rented out to people by cable company's not sold rented then yea i think locking the hardware down is a must. But if you buy it its your Tivo do what the heck you want with it if you break it its yours so what.
like what redesign the transistor layouts to make it more power efficient??
@@tcroyce8128 To be able to repair it, for one thing.
Freedom is the ability to choose whether to use completely free software or not niether are wrong
Agreed, that's why I think Linus is right. Nobody nowadays is forced to use none free software, we now have a choice thanks to Stallman and Linus so calling Corporation evil is obsolete. People can choose to run Freesiftware or nonFree.
Oh please I used to think he (Richard Stallman) was nuts talking about "freedom" in
software but now with Google being ran by SJW beta CUCKS and censoring
free speech (including videos giving sound advice to people going
through depression) yet monitizing child abusers like Daddyofive, he
doesn't sound so crazy afterall
@@deathangel523 It's not really a choice, f.ex. you have to pay more for internet to use free software on your computer. (Richard Stallman)
@Lenny McLennington yep. The GNU Project also has a webpage on this, of course: www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html
@@deathangel523 the usual full-stack free software setup I've seen is running a Thinkpad X60 with libreboot and Trisquel GNU/Linux. The X60 was released in _2006_ .
Most newer motherboards have proprietary BIOS and don't allow the used to install his/her own BIOS. Not only that, but proprietary drivers are also the only option for a lot of people.
The acceptance of proprietary drivers in Linux (the kernel) among its developers is, I think, a big contributing factor to the lack of ability to use free software.
The virgin Linus vs. the Chad Stallman
There's nothing wrong with GPL v3 it merely closes loopholes that corporations can use to label themselves "Free" whilst still shipping proprietary secret code no one outside their firm can read. Becomes a problem for Linus because his Kernel is widely used by such corporations, but it is entirely within the original mission of the FSF, it's just Linus that sadly isn't.
There is a lot of things wrong with GPL v3 that Linus points out, i.e. it enables, FSF in particular, to revoke your right to the software if you are not using it the way they want. Also, FSF is an immoral fucking collection on bigoted digital commies, and their version of digital despotism, subterfuge and coercion is no less evil than the despotism of surveillance capitalism.
They all need to be brought under control by government regulation, or we're fucked. Seems though, it's a bit too late for at least USA and China on this, which are just neocommunist and neofascist social orders. So, it's cyberpunk feudalism for them.
There's hope in europe where democratic decision making still works inspite European Union's version of totalitarian communism and things like the European Central Bank, WEF and major (in particular green-left) MEPs saying openly China and the social credit system is the future model for a society and "you will own nothing and be happy". Yeah, no.
But, just like the UK political movements protecting their citizens best interests, basic human rights, such as private property rights (UN Declaration of Human Rights define it as a incontrevertible human right) and national sovreignity will lead to EU's dissollution eventually.
Or, it'll just implode into another pan-european war after the war in Ukraine is done, as it's now a illegitimate (against its founding agreement and principal law which was to never be violated) a pan-european debt alliance. Which, historically has always lasted less than a couple of decades and ended only after nearly a half a century of continent ravaging warfare.
So, yeah. WW3 is coming. But it ain't this bullshit with a neofascist russian tzar falling on his sword as his last dying action. Or, china anything. Their capacity to actually do warfare is even less than Russia and they're far more corrupt. Unlike Russia which has been training and prepping up its military through out the past 15 years. China hasn't got a single soldier that would have ever even seen a live fire situation where someone is firing angrily at them.
Their last soldier to have seen combat is around 75-80 years old at this point. So, that's not a military that fights anything. :D
@cunningunz If Linux was GPLv3, Android would be based on FreeBSD. Just like everyone else do.
Having any sort of license is super autistic. Literally just publish the source code for anybody do with as they please. You don't need some long license written by some pedophile telling you that it's OK
2:05 It's because then there is still no one having power over the users.
*****
That's not what control is. Having control over something or someone means having power to change what the thing or person one is controlling does or is able to do. If you can only write a software once and then don't have the power to change it, you don't have control over its users.
Note that I'm not saying that it's a good thing. I'm just saying that I agree with the FSF's notion of that not qualifying as control.
It still doesn't give the users freedom. But it doesn't actively restrict it which would be the case if anyone but the user had the power to change it. The user themself not being able to change it just makes the situation worse and the user entirely helpless as they are not able to change the software to no longer permit changes by others.
***** I don't get what you mean in your last paragraph.
I suppose you're saying: "Having the ability to change [the software on the device] doesn't mean anything [because users won't do so if they don't have the source code of the original software]." Is this correct?
"If the read only program is open source, and you have a way of checking the whether the binary version of the open source matches with the embedded one you have, it's totally fine." Really? What if you find out that the spyware part is in the published source code? Remember that spyware isn't necessarily illegal. Heck, the are a shit ton of politicians proposing to require manufacturers to install spyware.
"It's the same proprietary vs OS discussion." No. Just because something is open source, that doesn't mean you have the right to change it. And it especially doesn't mean you have the right to share your changes with others. That's why the distinction between OSS and free software is so important to many.
*****
"actually we all use spyphones" That's precisely my point. And because I can change things about it, I did. For example by using xprivacy.
I wouldn't care too much about my computer mining bitcoin in the background. That may cost you a little money and wear your hardware down a bit faster but it's not much money, most hardware is thrown away before it dies anyways (actually, I never did that but a lot of people do), and such software is usually created in such a way that the user's work isn't slowed down significantly so they're less likely to reinstall their operating system because their computer has become slow, thereby deleting the malware.
I just don't see how it would be that much harm is done in such a way. What bothers me much more are actions against the users.
"Not giving users the freedom to change the code is the company's loss, not mine." Do you mean because you wouldn't do it or because you wouldn't care about its legality? If the latter is the case, you'd probably care if you got caught. Would feel really bad and unfair to have to pay a fine or even go to prison for changing a program you use to make it fit your needs better, wouldn't it?
Personally I like to use free software as much as possible. But as long as the user has a choice of what to use, and they understand the differences between the options, they should be free to make their own decision. The FSF seems to disagree with that, but at the same time they're a driving force between the option to use free software at all. So they do have an important role in the community.
Nothing really wrong with the FSFs view, if someone can change it that someone should include the person who bought it, simple as, i fail to understand the motive behind Torvald's disagreement
Flip that around for a minute, this means that if I buy the commercial hardware and change it to suit my personal needs, I can be thrown in a cage for violating the commercial contract.
You don't think this is more fanatical.
The funny thing is that even in this comment section, you still see the same absurd arguments defending the FSF ideology, either pointing out "examples" which don't exist and never happen, concepts which don't matter to 99.9% of population, things which are unrelated to FSF completely, and of course misrepresenting the actual purpose of features (most commonly data collection). The general idea sounds good at first glance, but once you start looking into it, you realise it's all extreme idealism, and once you really go deeper, you have to come to the same conclusion as Torvalds: Some of these people are clinically insane.
The way i see it, in the age of personal tracking where everyone has digital devices and nobody knows what's running on them, where you can and are digitally fingerprinted cross-browser and cross-devices and your browing data is sold without your knowledge to advertising agencies, the FSFs original point has been completely vindicated, maybe you think the dictators of your software and benign and so tolerate them, that's your opinion, many of us like to ask questions and dig deeper and if they're hiding it from us, it only makes us even more suspicious
Is there a full length interview anywhere rather than just clips?
'freedom of choice mean that i can chose to give away my freedom' says a die heard apple fan ;p
This is not as practical as you are saying. I cannot take an unmodified GPLv3 product and include it in my proprietary product. The license is viral. This isn't about me making changes to something and not releasing it. Stalman is incorrect in his assertions. The Apache foundation has contributed more to software development than the GNU foundation. That is the OSS vs FF argument right there. Keep in mind if it wasn't for Torvalds "GNU Linux" would of been DOA.
Richard Stallman is the father of the open source software movement. If Linus admitted how he was inspired by Stallman to release his kernel under the GNU GPL in 1992 instead of taking credit for an entire community of operating systems which he contributed a Kernel.
gonna have to agree with Linus on this one
This is one area where I couldn't agree with Linus more. I have no problem with proprietary code even, I think it's good to have both free software and proprietary software working together to let businesses protect their assets and offer flexibility. And consumers can use services that work.
Now turning free software into proprietary software is sketchy, and all the big tech companies do that to one extant or another. Heck I just found out that OS X uses the GCC for instance.
But I fall into the same camp as Bruce Perens, author of the Open Source definition, on this debate. Proprietary code isn't bad, and it's actually good in many ways so businesses can work with free software while meeting their various needs.
I know this is a hot topic. And I'll get called the devil by hardcore Stallmanites, but I agree with Linus.
Anduril Agreed, pity truly free distros don't have the same level of compatibility.
I agree. There are many legitimate use-cases for locking down the hardware without compromising the social contract that Linus is talking about. Every security-relevant piece of hardware is such a case. The company I work for manufactures medical devices. Not being able to change the software that runs on the hardware is a security feature. So we use TPMs to lock down the software. That doesn't mean that we cannot contribute to open source software. We can still publish our source code. But we absolutely need to ability to prevent 3rd party software from being run on our devices.
I don't understand the basic premise Linus (and really all those opposing GPLv3) adhere to. Why should anyone who sells me a piece of hardware have the right to tell me what I can and can't do with it? And if your answer is "They shouldn't.", then how can you justify allowing a hardware company to use GPLv2 software on their devices which violate this principle? If TiVo puts GPLv2 software on a device and sells it to me, how is it NOT automatically a violation of the GPLv2 license if I'm not allowed to change that GPLv2 software on that device?
Honestly, most of the arguments I hear boil down to a ridiculously simplistic "that's hardware, GPL is software" perspective, as if there's no relationship. If Linus truly believes what he's saying, then Linux shouldn't use the straight GPLv2 - it should use an amended version that stipulates to that idea, that if a hardware vendor chooses to, they can limit your rights to use Linux on that device to the ways they decide you can. Which of course isn't even possible, because such a license amendment would be fundamentally contradictory to blanket statements that are deliberately and explicitly in place in the GPLv2 ... which is the point.
Well for one thing they are a business that don't want to lose profits by letting someone copy paste their work and say it is theirs....
hamiltino can you amplify on what you mean? I don't see how that relates ... do you mean TiVo doesn't want someone to copy/paste their work?
If you are selling software and release the code, you are just allowing more competition.
hamiltino oh - so you're just opposing the whole thought process and business flow of open source, not commenting specifically on what I commented. Understood (and disagree, but I understand that position ).
David Bucci I'm not opposing open source i am explaining why their is a reluctance to adopt open source practices. Maybe if you add the two together you can see why open source ideologies need some flexibility.
Well, I would like to see more videos and read more about this guy, from a first perspective, it's very hard to me to see what's the difference between locking the software and locking the hardware. There are ethically both wrong because of the exact same reasons.
The GPL licenses do not allow you to take a GPL licensed software, make a change and redistribute it as a binary. That would be against the ethics of sharing and communitie improvements. That would take out your freedoms, your freedom to understand what YOUR product is doing what it's doing, and the ability to modify that product to mke it better or fit it to your purposes.
If you make locked software you shouldn't be able to use free software, because you are using the community work, but not giving your corresponding part to the communitie.
+Peter Castle Agreed . I can't think why Linus would want to support corporations who restrict consumers from their own hardware . He also didn't complain about secure-boot even though there are now lower priced tablets and laptops that will only boot Windows because of a signed key . It's clear that Windows was benefiting from locking the system down to a single version of Windows . You would think that the owner of Linux would oppose that , but nope . I think Linus may be afraid of confronting big corporations - Maybe there are financial reasons - I dont know .
+SPPV why does it matter? if I want a Linux computer, I can buy computer built for Linux. The only problem I have is when I am building a computer and the computer has built in secure boot enabled automatically at least. When it comes to Hardware, that I am building it should be more free.
*****
What about people who cant build their own machines who now wont have a chance in running anything but windows . They may want to try linux but find they cant boot the distro they want . Maybe they cant afford a dedicated linux box .
That being the case, they are gona have to find a job to earn the money so they can leave windows. In the mean time, don't put anything on your computer, that you don't want Microsoft to know about if you don't trust them.For a while, I was in that camp. Today, I am going to modify my computer to be Linux ready because, I am not going to use windows 10 unless, they stop forcing their updates on the users that is just ridiculous.
*****
I never went forward (to 8.1 or 10) after Windows 7 , which I only use for playing 3d games as win32/win64 is the only real gaming system for PC . Now with forced-updates , I dunno what I'll do if games drop support for 7 . Hopefully someone will release an aftermarket app to block updates . I've got a couple of Linux machines , and they're just so much more fun/liberating with regards to general computing . Hopefully with steam supporting linux and PS4 based on BSD , more game developers will want to push Linux or maybe another unix os for a games system . Android has shown the potential for gaming on the linux kernel with low power devices . If devs worked on gaming compatibility/directx api for wine , in time Linux could become an even better gaming system than windows as with Linux you could have distributions built from the ground up for a gaming platform . It would be more memory efficient and have far less background tasks running (Maybe even a low level virtualizer for vt/amd-v extensions so a desktop OS could be started from within a linux gaming os {or just dual boot}) . Also Linux provides good support for running different API's like Wine and backwards compatibility can always be managed with different sets of shared libraries . It's about time consoles and PC's merged . If only it was easier to squeeze a PC's components into a small case that doesn't waste any space . Small cases for matx boards and full size gpus with riser cards and powerful psu's cost a fortune . I might think of trying to build my own with acryllic or something , but it'll probably look cheap/bad .
Same issues as Debian vs FSF. Debian doesn’t ship any nonfree software, but because users can fairly easily install nonfree software (except you can fairly easily install nonfree software on FSF approved distros) it isn’t an approved FSF distro.
My personal opinion is that FSF wants similar controls over “libre” software as other software manufactures hold over their closed source software.
what's up with those innappropriate images?
If I GPLized a logo and that logo is used on a muscle car hood. What do we do to respect GPL
if you use GPLv2 (not GPLv2+) you must tell the other side to paste the license in their work. If you use GPLv2+, the other side won't give you money, but still comply with the former. If you use GPLv3 you must ask the other side to give you money for your work (legal lawyers and stuff)
I tried to post the link of the lecture but youtube won't alow me unfortunately. In it he demonized most methods of commerce and stated the only way that was ethical is by asking for donations online. Here is the problem I see with the free as in freedom movement. If I write something do I not have the right to say how I'm going to allow someone to use my product? What If I don't want someone to copy change or modify my work and sell it as their own or give it away.
Actually the GNU license is invalid because it disallows fair use. You can not license a copy right which by default includes fair use exceptions then claim people are being licensed the right to use a copy right but forbid derivatives and transformations (fair use)!? That is called deceptive advertising?
GNU's own FAQ says that fair use is allowed (www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLFairUse). Where does it say derivatives aren't allowed?
Personally, I full on respect both Torvalds and Stallman. They are both awesome pioneers along with many MANY others... I'm a bit torn hearing how this disagreement came to light, publicly. I bet Bill Gates is having a party after hearing this. I think publicly suggesting others are on drugs and insane is a bit heavy handed :-(
Arguments and disagreements can be stressful for people with aspergers especially when beliefs are deeply rooted. Its important to understand the importance of dialog in a disagreement. That its comparable with people of differeing ideas of going to an art mueseum and talking about say piccaso. That 2 people who are computer scientists can have very different ideas of implementation strategies both being correct but very different in strategy.
This issue is very complex and highly intellectual far beyond the simple "tech" aspect. I would say Mr. Stallman is more on the idealist side of the spectrum and Linus more on the practical one.
This is great and all, but if I buy something, I should be able to do what I want with it (IMO). If you establish a practice that 'allows' an entity sole control of a product, then the user is not in control; they are at the mercy of that entity, what's more is that there is 'nothing' to keep that entity in check. If you buy a device without sole control (there are plenty of uninformed people out there that will buy it)you're rewarding and cont perpetuating the idea that it's ok to be less free.
very interesting discussion, it concerns different concepts of freedom. so who is right? or is freedom the right to choose either way?
John O'Shaughnessy even though I think Linus is right in the video, the mere definition of freedom implies you cannot choose your limit your own freedom. But Stallman is a little bit crazy, that's right too.
'Clinically insane' - Yup! That about sums up Richard Stallman
This man could have been as rich as any of those tech billionaires but he chose to give his genius for free. Red hat made billions from his work and he got nothing.
Can anyone here say they are running a system on FSF solely? none have worked for me! ... connection issues etc etc ... yet even a small Ubuntu port (Linux-Lite) works perfectly out of the box ...
John Moore
it's pretty much a waste of time if you don't have hardware that fully suports it
Linus got it right. Tivo cannot allow to run not authenticated code, it is not because they want it, but because they are bind with legal obligations with cable companies and drm requirements. Do you consider everything as toys? I wish I could use GPLv3, but I cannot. Imagine to allow to play with your money on you bank account.
The purists and idealists make valuable contributions sometimes, but they are purists and idealists at the end of the day... They tend to be good at forming small super-intolerant minorities and making everyone feel bad for being naughty :D
Wouldn't earlier GPL license versions have also made a constraint like "if you want to use this GPL software in your software, then you have to license that software under GPL thus making it open source"? (and open source software is not as commercially viable). And isn't any license putting a constraint on usage. Otherwise what's the point of a license at all? Are you against the idea of a license?
So what does the user benefits if Linus gets the source code, but the user cannot exerciser any freedom? Good for Linus but bad for the user. Free software was always about not the code developer. In fact, the GPL v2 doesn't requre them to give the source code to Linus, but to the user. They could in theory only give the code to user on demand.
You are free to use the source that Linus gets, once again if you abide by GPLv2. That is how you benefit. What the FSF is pushing is basically "you can't make devices that prohibit running other software than the derivative software that you made". That is what he is saying. The user benefits from the whole "open source" paradigm remain the same.
I want to change my hardware, thank god for the fsf.
I agree with Linus Torvals in this point. While FOSS is the best option for the common user, prorpietary software is ok for big companies that can afford to make their own programs. People is free to decide what license they want to use on their software, and to decide what license they want in the software they use.
There is no reason to force anything on anyone, but to educate people on the pro/cons of using a certain license.
MaddXav "proprietary software is OK for big companies that can afford to make their own programs" - you do not understand what you are talking about ... big companies that can make their software USE FREE software, look at at facebook, amazon, google ... you name it. Anything big does not use proprietary software.
He told me a story about one of his clients that were developing something and because the company used MySQL for some of the product the investor pulled out of the deal. It was a 10 million dollar deal. This happened because companies looking to do business need to be able to monetize their software. Otherwise they won't invest the money or resources. In any regard this is a complex problem and I don't think it can be solved with extreme and simple solutions. I believe a balance is needed.
this is bs. If a deal didn't happen, chances are this has nothing to do with MySQL.
I was using gNewSense as my main OS for two days on my laptop computer. Everything worked fine except for wifi. That was okay because I could use an ethernet card and then that was fine. However, when I started to use the built in web browser it started to break apart when I was browsing RUclips and stuff (Due to the nature of the Google+ JavaScript framework being directly embedded onto the page, the browser I was using it with did not function well.) Other than that the OS was pretty comfortable, but also had trouble installing LinCity and CodeBlocks which where some fine pieces of software that I used through out the past. I will indeed go back to the gNewSense OS, but not right now since I can not use it for my programming homework and I am busy. I thought that the OS was an astronomically remarkable piece of software because not that many people where working on it and it was isolated, yet I could do many things on it... We are not there yet, but maybe when I become more savvy at coding, then I can join them. But right now I am tiny and can`t use it.
protip: watch youtube videos in vlc. Also install smtube for a lightweight youtube search gui that will then play videos in vlc. vlc won't show youtube's ads.
Eric Fontaine I shall try that. thank you.
Yep .. no wireless .. has been a big problem with FSF based distros, they need to get that fixed!
You have fallen into the JavaScript trap, see www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
Well, all I'll say is this: It is the Free SOFTWARE Foundation. As long as TiVo released their modifications to the kernel software, I'm really not sure how the FSF can (with a straight face) argue that the hardware should (essentially) also be open-sourced as well.
they dont.
but if a company uses tivoisation then they van subvert the GPL
After trying to legally navigate the minefield of "open source" licensing issues for small-scale commercial embedded devices, I can understand why small companies turn to Windows CE. Distribution providers need to start offering a "paid-for" version of their offering which wraps all software content in a single commercial license payment or royalty. This will probably require Linus Torvolds to represent the "open source" movement (not just the kernel) in order to open a dialogue with the big boys such as Oracle, Apache Foundation, Qt and so on.
Open-source is permissive, the problem is use free software locked.
GPLv3 is a great license. Of course, it is not applicable in many situations, that is understandable.
Linus is right about one thing, Linux wouldn't be as commercially viable were it licensed under the GPLv3. Controlling how you use Linux would likely just piss off commercial vendors who would probably just end up forking old versions of Linux or using FreeBSD.
Bsd license is much better for corporate uses its interesting that Linux dominates
GPL V3 actually makes it even worse by including a claus that forces all software written for it use gpl v3 to prevent licensing stacking. So lets say I make X program, and you make a program that interacts and changes X program, well then that peice of software also has to use GPL V3. Now this claus has not been enforced and RIchard pretends it doesn't exist any more, but if you go in and read gpl v3 and go through it, there it is in broken english and it regards this whole section that linus is addressing here. So you can't have a base program that uses GPL v3 that downloads a program and uses it within itself with a seperate and different license, it is not worded this way but yeah it contains to how the BLOB section is written within GPL v3. V3 takes away freedom of license usage which is why Richard wanted to push it so hard on the linux kernal so it would combat all other rival licenses and prevent anyone from using any other license then his own because Richard doesn't believe in freedom of choice, he constantly says its a illusion of choice not a freedom of choice. His understanding of freedom and most peoples is completely different. I have contacted Richard stallman several times before about which license of his I could use that lined up with my case usage and I found that none of his would and he tried to tell me that I don't value freedom if I don't use one of his even if I make my own. He tried saying my ideas are evil and infringe on others freedoms, when my end goal was to create a store front of software to be sold without collecting user data digitally and distrobute it in a form that included both the source code and binaries and he didn't like this idea at all. I said but you said you want a system free as in freedom not free as in price and that is what I was trying to make, he still didn't like that idea at all because it ment that I would profit and I was looking for a solution to make people pay for the software before downloading it, he very much didn't like that at all. I asked him how can I make money off of this and still have it give people freedom? And the only method he gave me was if I put it on physical media and then sold that, but the physical media has to comply with FSF standards, and he couldn't give me 1 example of 1 that did but that was back in 2010ish, and I really didn't want to go that avenue. It boiled down to him suggesting a donation system, I told him I already had one in and no one has done it in over 10 years. Not a single person donated but thousands of downloads. How am I suppose to survive off that? Its not that I don't value freedom, I do, its that I also need to survive to have the freedom that I do have, and I found that the only way he really profits is off merch, and book sales, and that he is not the tech genius that everyone thinks he really is, he gets information from his inner circle.
Do your own shit bruh. Any links to your program?
Well, I love the idea of GNU, and Linux, because I can have now a UNIX-like environment on my PC to study a lot of things: C, C++, perl, python, etc. You see, Microsoft doesn't give you any of those, you have to pay fat dollars for their .net Visual Studio. However, I think Mr. Linus Torvalds became so famous, that he became kind of like the third big guy in computers aside from Gates and Jobs. I agree though, Mr. Torvalds actually created something, as opposed to trading others ideas
What TiVO did with the kernel code seems quite normal to me. It was clearly intended to restrict the final usage of ITS hardware that it developed with ITS money. But it could have been done for security reason. If you sell security products, you want to make sure that your patched kernel is being executed on your hardware, and not a malicious code. Should Linux switch to GPL v3, I'm convinced a lot of companies would abandon it for less restrictive licensed OS (the BSD family for example...)
How does it not make sense? The GPL is supposed to protect consumers from software creators taking away their rights and harming them. Software that can be changed only from the creator is no different from what proprietary software does to harm it's users on a mass scale. Developers can easily update their devices with malware (as in functionality harmful to the user).
We've seen many companies have to find a new business model because the commercial software industry has come under attack by this line of thinking and there really is no need for it. Plus there are many good things that DRM can do also. It can ensure that viruses don't infiltrate a system, it can be used to create a very secure digital currency that is far easier to use the bitcoin is, and it can be used to protect peoples privacy by ensuring that their downloaded emails can't be stolen.
I like Linus torvald but I have to agree with Richard stallman to prevent the corporations that having absolute control over Society we have to have the ability to challenge them
Freedom is doing what the fuck you need to do preferably not harming others in conviction.
1:10
But we're paying for the software. Why have to pay for something I'm not given the control of.
My major point and my concern is making an industry that people working in it will have the ability to make a living. I think DRM can be a very useful tool in making that happen. Granted the tools that have been provided have either been too restrictive or too buggy with not enough safe guards. Granted there are aspects of DRM that have been down right annoying to work with because it locks up content people have licensed legally. Those sorts of things however can be overcome.
Remember when Meraki pushed firmware upgrade to brick all the devices of early adopters. That is why it has to be everyone can change or nobody.
your comment made me investigate this interesting subject a bit further, thx.
I'm confused by one thing though, how come FSF approves BSD licenses if the licenses allow for re-releasing modified versions on a proprietary license? wouldn't that be against FSF principals?
your last comment is very true, it's not really a purchase, it's more of a rental with a one time rental fee. they still own it, even more when they can change it at will, over the internet.
Linus is wrong, their position makes complete sense with respect to their goals and values, it just isn't that practical. Hardware requires massive amounts of upfront capital investment and thus requires scale. The FSF license simply isn't practical when it comes to hardware.
There is a cost to the production of software. People should be payed for their work. Even those good people in the open source community.
Clinically insane? Ok, so, when the vendor can change something, on request, for example, of GHCQ or NSA, and I cannot revert that change, then Linus is fine with that ... I call Linus insane, on this one. He has done great things, but he lives in a fantasy world ...
Hans Carpenter Says the guy who uses Google's SaaS. Seriously, give it a rest. Your tired diatribes of distorted freedom are boring and old. Yes, clinically insane that there are people like you in the world; who believe in forcing your own definition of freedom on others. True freedom is using what you want, not using what others believe is ethical.
if (google_user == TRUE) {
printf( "shut the fuck up about free software" );
}
Hypocrite.
***** . >True freedom is using what you want.
Exactly, I want to use that graphics card, however, I do not want to use that 250mb driver, I prefer the 150k driver, which is free software and comes without bloated BS userland crap that loads when my OS starts up. As for google, they both use and support free software... so I do not get your childish response. Congrats on your "if" statement! Here we have one of a "hacker"!
Hans Carpenter Your attempt to ridicule falls on deaf ears.
"As for google, they both use and support free software..." -Yeah, so you can freely modify and use your own version of RUclips, then? Can you freely modify and use your own Google+? You can modify their code to keep Google from complying with the NSA? Is it not your hardware that accesses their systems? Do you not agree to their license (which is proprietary) when using their SaaS?
You're a hypocrite. Worse than that, you're trying to justify how Google's proprietary services are okay because they "support free software." Which completely negates the FSF and your nonexistent argument.
Come back when you know what you're talking about.
*****
Well said!
***** Ok, feel free to call me hypocrite all you want, I think I am free to use the services I want. Of course, I would prefer to use 100% FSF, however, I cannot - because we have not come up with FSF solutions for everything, yet. The day I will be able to, I will be glad, in the meantime, I use what is at my disposal. I maintain, binary blobs are evil, I have to use them in some of my computers because there is no alternative, yet. You cannot, from day 1 expect to have FSF solutions for everything, however, it remains a goal of our community. The only binary blob I use on my computer is from nvidia, because, like Linus said on numerous occasions, nvidia suck. One day, we will have a FSF alternative, until then, I am condemned to use this BS. I do not think that makes me a hypocrite, a realist, maybe ...
All 12 years: Want to work at FAANG
Me 12 years: Have a dream to become a open-source developer
First of all, the point is not bad things can happen in this case, but that you have absolutely no recourse. Abuse is codified into the law. If you look a little closer this is different than a doctor becoming a murderer. Secondly, yes, we should imagine and discuss the worse possible cases in everything we do, debate them, and consider of the worst case scenarios does, infact, outweigh the overall benefits.
poor audio
He didn't say that everyone that supports free software is insane. Linux uses GPL 2 because Torvalds himself supports free software.
Torvalds simply believes that software licenses should attempt to control only software, not the hardware on which it runs. So, as long as one has access to the software, and can modify it to run on some other hardware, Torvalds believes there is nothing unethical about using digital signatures to prevent running modified copies of Linux
This is his point of view
uhh actually linus stance on closed source hardware is "fuck you". Check the middle finger it gave to nvidia when they ended up adding the whole driver support inside cards, and linux kernel was left out, by left out i mean adding real generic and legacy code and no enabling specific card features (such as the ones you'd find in closed source code, being the missing half bridge required by the card to run 100%). I think Linus really meant: open source code licenses the software running on any machine. That machine is yours and open Source restores that ability. His stance is "hardware vendor if you plan on opensourcing stuff, welcome", "hardware vendor if you don't support open source, fuck you". I think the hardware itself has no relevance at all since the hardware in some countries is entirely yours (can't be sued by the provider if you don't use the hardware as they wish you'd). So openSource gpl v2 exploits that effectively turning the machine you own, into yours truly.
"Torvalds believes there is nothing unethical about using digital signatures to prevent running modified copies of Linux", uhh what? context? Security related, piracy related? AFAIK Linus supports the ability to write your own code, if you reverse engineer code you are a whore and a cheater:
www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/11/torvalds_attack/
“What Larry is not fine with, is somebody writing a free replacement by just reverse-engineering what he did. Larry has a very clear moral standpoint: ‘You can compete with me, but you can’t do so by riding on my coat-tails. Solve the problems on your own, and compete honestly. Don't compete by looking at my solution.’
And I agree 100% with him. (note, I am a dev, and I code a lot, bottom up, top down, etc)
How is it possible he supports enterprise from using closed source drivers, and at the same time he hates enterprises that do so? (nvidia incident) I think you need context. To me Linus Torvalds is the old real programmer that honours real coders, and spites cheap coders. (or their attitude)
If the "malware" is a patch to free software then they have to make the source code public, by license. Which means that it is in no way covert. Your problem isn't the software license, it's the same problem that consumers always face: caveat emptor. If you're really concerned about it then you should be more selective about who you're buying your hardware from. But it's not something that software developers should concern themselves with.
bloozism: agreed, however I can understand both viewpoints. GPL v3 isnt better then GPL v2 or the other way around imho, it totally depends on the circumstances and intention of the particular project.
Stallman is hardly a Libertarian.
My, My
How that turntables gave turned😂
According to the FSF, gas stations should be allowed to tamper with the software embedded in gas pumps, people should be allowed to edit the contents of their credit cards' chips to whatever, and medical devices might be running who knows what OS because it's apparently a horrible thing to lock down the hardware you've spent millions developing.
ehh no
you dont own the gas pumps
also GPL V3 allows tivoisation when law rewuires like gas pumps, hospitals, voting machines etc.
Here is my point though. I think it is very dubious to call a system that in the way it is structured prevents the authors of software the ability to make a living off of their work more ethical then someone who chooses to charge for their work and puts in features to make sure they can be payed. What I'm talking about is that free as in freedom in its current form has unintended consequences. And those consequenses will eventually lead to the demise of the software industry.
Well Open Source is a term used by most people today to encompass all software where the source code is distributed along with or in place of the binary. It generally includes the GPL and all other. That is the understanding that the world has of open source. Rightly or wrongly that's what most people believe because that's how it was explained to them.
However, in terms of MySQL rightly or wrongly whether or not you don't see a problem is not the issue. Its the perception that's the issue.
To understand this position you have to understand what the problem with free is. Even free as in freedom rather then free as in no price has implications. I believe that the open source community has to come to a point where there must be a balance between open source and commercial if it wants to maintain a vibrant industry. I don't have a problem with the OS being free as its a point that prevents monopolies from forming. However, I do have a problem with applications being all made free.
To sell my software i use my own licence
if i write a software for use on a campus or at google, i use LGPL
if i write a software i don't care about much i use GPL or BSD
When people perceive a problem they will not use it and you will have a monumentally difficult time to getting them to adopt your software. Its the same argument with DRM. Rightly or wrongly companies want the piece of mind DRM gives them and as a result you will have a monumental time convincing them that DRM doesn't work. You will there for see future attempts at this technology. My suggestion here in dealing with it is to make a DRM that is acceptable to everyone.
hes absolutely correct. rms is ruining computing
Wow! These guys are pushing drugs.
---Linus Torvalds 2011
linus is the trojan horse who destroyed the whole movement
Has anyone tried working with hippies? Bro, it's not a walk in the park, I can tell you that...
If you ever wanted the definition between a liberal and a leftist its this video. "Freedom of choice" above all else even if its the freedom to be enslavement.
I hate this term mixing, locking a ROM is not enslavement and using a Mac or whatever is not a jail. RMS is dogmatic, whether he jokes about it or not he is dogmatic and his idea to force others to do as he wishes is but a power fantasy. The FSF kills and defunds projects that lack development power or use proprietary parts (see the Debian debacle or Savene) RMS himself especially barges in to berate people who disagree with him. If you feel that it's fine if someone retains control of the software he sells then you buy that software if not you look for an open alternative, what is the problem? There is no enslavement there, if you dislike a locked ROM piece of hardware you don't use it. There are always alternatives, even to Android.
I love this guy. I'd buy him a pint anytime!
You think software doesn't have a cost to production? Just because you can put software on a server and copy it cheaply doesn't mean that software doesn't have a cost to produce. People write software. It takes thousands of man hours sometimes of coding. It takes graphics artists. Sometimes musicians to produce software. Linux itself has been coded painstakingly by thousands of people. Now those people have volunteered their time.
Look, no software is 100% secure regardless of how many people you have trying to find bugs and fix exploits. However, thats not where the majority of the security is aimed towards. Most companies don't use things like DRM or copy protection to guard against other programmers. They make it to guard against software being too easy to copy so that most people will have to pay for it.
FSF when device firmware resides on a flash chip inside the device: I sleep
FSF when the exact same device firmware is loaded by the PC at boot: Real shit
Hence a very basic difference between Open Source and Free Software
Free Software tries to discourage evil.
Open Source will send teams of lawyers to defend your right to be evil.
The freedom to be evil is an important freedom also
Also though, I think in this day and age, things are -at last- moving towards hardware devices, away from computers being just a laptop/desktop. And I don't like the idea of hardware having something in it or built specifically to lock down the code so modified versions don't run on it. And as for linus's personal choice argument, that could be applied to GPL v2,which restricts peoples' usage saying any SW using it has to be open source and with that license. GPLv3 is more in the spirit of GPL.
"clinically insane" .... just WELL SAID LINUS ! WELL SAID
Just use a BSD style license
That's the point, BSD-like license doesn't is what Linus want and tivoization doesn't hurt GPL v2, since the code gets back to the community. The lock restricted you to use a modified version on the hardware that was designed for that, it's a harware lock, not code lock. For Linus, if you can use it in another hardware, that is no problem at all. GPL v3 forces to make modifications that make this possible and for linux, there is no problem you use it, but he won't.
You make no sense at all. Linus was perfectly clear.
I like how linus is practical, and not fanatical
Solution that you talking about "how to do things", sounds more like a "concept". Source code is like a blueprint of software that will be constructed by compiled in to some machine code.
I agree, for instance drivers. I mean, yes I bought hardware and understand that not everything has copyleft, specially drivers. So that's ok, in fact I don't want to touch drivers, I trust that the company of the hardware is managing them better than I would. So yes, long live to copyleft but just at the extent that it doesn't affect the user. At least the average user, let me tell'ya, I have seen that free and open software exist due in a great proportion to the average user. So totally open source could lead to serios problems in reaching the full public due to the overdiversification.
what is "overdiversification"? And you state that you wish to "trust" hardware manufacturers with executing random code on your hardware that no one can see or read outside their corporation that's fine, the FSF exists precisely because it opposes that naive worldview and understands corporations will be corporations and will abuse any power they can get over you. YOU might not want to read the drivers, but other people more knowledgeable about them than you might, and nonfree blobs prevent that, there is no way to spin it into anything other than a dangerous practice that's based on faith in multinational corporations being kind enough as to not violate your rights and in a world where the NSA is a thing and Prism was a thing, for you to suggest that it's fine to "trust" corporations when you can't even trust your own government is a statement of extreme naivety.
It's like allowing governments to write secret laws that are not known or disclosed to the public but can be used against you at any time they wish.
But even the OS you are applying a point where no value is given to the work of the authors of that OS because the conditions by which the licensing is given you have no ability monetize the work. Anyone who acquires the work has the right to give it to all their friends. You end up not deriving any value from the work at all.