On 3/10/06, Sick Twist <thesicktwist@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From: michael hast <evylrobot19@cox.net>
> >Reply-To: slug@nks.net
> >To: slug@nks.net
> >Subject: [SLUG] Linus interview
> >Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:58:23 -0600
> >
> >You guys see this?
> >
> >
> http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-licensing-cz_dl_0309torvalds1.html
> >
> >Admittedly, he doesn't come across the least bit crazy in this one, but
> >rather very well balanced. There is the bit about the sharks, but
> everyone
> >should have a sense of humor afterall.
>
> There are holes in his argument. To continue the mad scientist analogy,
> what
> good would the scientist's altered code be if the alterations depended on
> the presence of a secret hardware key in order to run? Outside of the
> mechanical shark, that code would be pretty useless to the user. Such
> circumstances are what the FSF aims to avoid and the revisions that will
> be
> in GPL 3 are designed to protect the user's freedom in such a case (as
> well
> as others).
So Mad scientist #2 simply creates his own hardware key ....
Dish Network I am sure is against GPL3 why because they use linux in there
products. Now the thing is that in there kernel they at times have to poll
inforomation from the firmware which is not open source as it deals with
security. Now the thing is if you look at dish linux code you will see that
it is very well commented out. So while ther is coded that they given back
that says hey we are pulling a hidden hardware key it does not stop anyone
else from creating there own firmware with ther own key. The short and the
simple of it is that GPL3 would be anti business. Businesses at times need
to protect key information from others. That is how businesses stay alive
by not showing al there cards.
Stallman = Software communism
Now that might be a little tough to swallow for some but I personally dont
want some dingus writing licences that is going to dictate how I use and or
alter a piece of software. If he wants to do that I think Microsoft is
hiring.
It also bothers me a bit that although Linus has problems with the first
> draft of GPL 3, he is apathetic towards the work that remains in crafting
> it. While the kernel may be uneffected by the next version of GPL, I'm
> pretty sure that some modules are licensed "GPL 2 or later" and thus could
> be affected by GPL 3. Furthermore, there are most likely many tools Linus
> depends on that will be licensed under GPL 3 so he will have to deal with
> the new changes one way or another. Now is the best time to raise
> criticisms
> before GPL 3 is finalized.
>
> -Jonathon
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
> Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
> posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
> official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:51:43 EDT