Get Smart about Business Spending
- Related Stories
-
Free software's white knight
March 17, 2006 -
Torvalds says DRM isn't necessarily bad
February 3, 2006 -
Defender of the GPL
January 19, 2006 -
New open-source license targets DRM, Hollywood
January 18, 2006 -
Stallman unbending on software patents
January 17, 2006
(continued from previous page)
What projects are you working on for the FSF?
Brown: One of my roles at the FSF is to get the message of free software outside the hacker world. It's very easy to get into the IT press, but we're not about getting freedom for computer programmers--we want freedom for all computer users. How do we get the message out of the hacker community into the real world?
When you ask people about free software, they should instinctively believe in free software. Just like people say "I recycle my cans" but don't understand the process behind it, you don't need to have read the GPL (General Public License) or been a programmer to understand that a computer should be under your control. The typical computer user can't change the software. Then again, my mum can't change what the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank is doing, but these issues still matter to her.
This is the perfect time to get the message out about free software, as you have a confluence of situations--there is a growing realization among the general public that certain CDs won't play in your CD player, or you can't play them in your computer. Then we have the upcoming release of (Microsoft's Windows) Vista, which has DRM (digital rights management technology) up to its gills.
It is time to show a contrast. GPL 3 is the first stake in the ground against DRM. For the first time, someone has said, "That's it; we're stopping it."
When we release the second draft of GPL 3 sometime in June, we're going to be campaigning to end DRM. We will be campaigning with manufacturers and to get computer users to care about this issue--to not buy their hardware from certain manufacturers and to pinpoint the fact that if you're downloading music, there are a lot of restrictions on how you can use it. For example, you can't share it with friends, and the next device you buy may not allow you to play music you have already downloaded and paid for.
What is this campaign against DRM going to involve?
Brown: We haven't got the campaign organized yet, but we're going to be employing a professional campaigner. There are many facets to such a campaign. It's not directly a political campaign, although there is some bad legislation out there. This is about software companies and device manufacturers. There is a real potential for people power, whether it's boycotting devices or picketing certain places--there are a lot of lovely targets out there. We have thousands and thousands of free-software supporters out there, and they will be deeply involved in the campaign.
The whole purpose of the campaign will be to pinpoint three important areas. First, developers need to know that their freedom to tinker is at stake because of TiVo-ization--if you get a given device with GPL software on it and change the software, the device won't work any more because of DRM. TiVo was the first device to do that.
Second, we need to tell the wider world of mums and dads that they shouldn't be handing over the keys of their home to strangers. In the future, if you have a home entertainment system, it will be able to tell what you're watching and how many times you watch a video. The infrastructure to allow that monitoring is scary. People don't want to be monitored.
Finally, we'll be telling device manufacturers, "Do you want to have control over your destiny, or do you want content providers to have control over your destiny?" The music industry is tiny, compared to the device industry. But it's the music and movie industry that control the manufacturers. The manufacturers should be in control of their devices, and there should be a close communication between the manufacturer and the user. Do manufacturers want their destiny to be with their customers or the music industry?
As you mentioned earlier, the next draft of the GPL is due out in June. Will there be any big changes in this draft?
Brown: No, there won't be any big changes. The role of the GPL 3 process wasn't to get other people to introduce big changes--we only wanted to find out potential problems with what we were suggesting. When GPL 2 was released, Richard only had to talk to a few GNU maintainers, and that was it. Now GNU is only a fraction of the whole free-software world.
It's a huge community, and we need to let people tell us why they use the GPL. Some might say, "The way you've written this text won't work for us." We want to avoid these unintended consequences. We've only extended the ability of the GPL--we're not changing any promises we have previously made. The DRM provisions are nothing new--we are still aiming to protect freedom.
Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux and the maintainer of its development kernel, has said he doesn't like the DRM provisions in GPL 3. What do you think about this?
Brown: He hasn't sent a comment in through the official process, but we've seen his comments. We don't mind if people shout and scream--it adds to the process. But if people think we'll change the four freedoms, they're wrong. The DRM provision protects one of those freedoms.
How many employees are working for the FSF? What sort of things do they work on?
Brown: We currently have myself and about 10 staff members. All are paid, and two are part-timers. The FSF is the main sponsor of the GNU project, so there are a lot of developers to cater to. We have two full-time (system administrators) and one part-time,... and we have an administrator who works for the GNU Press, shipping books and software.
See more CNET content tagged:
Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, magazine, executive director, mass
--Marilee V.
http://www.iwantmyess.com
Thank you for spotting this and for bringing it to our attention. We appreciate your feedback.
But won?t the marketplace also determine what's good?
For example, Adobe's CS is a robust tool well liked by designers. As the company strives to improve its product for its customers, making the tool even more robust, new users and existing ones seek to purchase the tool and upgrades. That code is continually updated.
Isn't the marketplace also a venue which determines what "code will never die?"
--Marilee V.
http://www.iwantmyess.com
Example...OS/2 at the time and for a while it was an infinitely better OS than Windows was and yet strictly due to marketting and not the marketlace and even less technical merit the product was "killed".
In this case good code died.
Adobe will keep updating and upgrading CS only as long as it can reap profits and I would argue they even build in obsolescence and withhold features for the sake of the next upgrade.
If this is marketplace driven code then it's not good code or at least not the best possible code.
So in answer to your question...."I don't think so".
Abandoned free and open-source software is still available for people to use and even update.
Do a web search for the SeaMonkey web browser. It's an updated version of the Mozilla Application Suite; the interface still bears a striking resemblance to its ancestor, Netscape 4. The Mozilla Foundation abandoned the App Suite in favor of Firefox and Thunderbird, but for whatever reason there's still a community devoted to this relic. Because of the software's free/open-source license, a small group of programmers was able to add the latest rendering engine to their old interface and make this new piece of software that appeals to a certain group of consumers.
Free software isn't anti-market, despite the penchant for a number of its true believers to pitch it in revolutionary terms. The phenenom can also easily be described in market terms. I'll start with one: commoditization. Microsoft has been commoditizing software with a proprietary model too, by including products in the operating system. Netscape and Real Networks saw their original business models dry up when this competitor commoditized their market segments.
But when Microsoft did it, it created vendor lock-in. And that led to stagnation. Look at how outdated IE got, with all its security holes and lack of support for so many modern web design techniques. They're just now playing catch-up, and who can say if they would have done it at all if Mozilla Firefox hadn't been doing so well!
Software freedom seems to be serving consumers very well.
I think that this license more determines what type of ownership is good or bad; not the consumer end. The Better Business Bureau is more for consumer rights.
He says code wont die but I think more realistically that free software and free media (creative commons) will ensure that BAD code or Art will surely die, I sincerely hope so as I'm sick of people humping their way to the top. So consumers decide in the end. Places like www.musicnow.com are a good start by putting most of what's out there in front of your face well categorized, but still, there are too many restrictions that are limiting the true innovation that I see over at the Creative Commons websites. Check out the CC's free media bin. I think there are some CC tools to categorize music as well or there working on it.
I'm sick of artists and musicians allowing the service industry to run their music. Record companies are a service to record your music. They are supposed to be a paid service working for you. I think if a musician wants to NOT allow people to own their work after you purchased it, then he should state it himself and contract it himself instead of hiding behind the skirts of the music industry. Stop being a wimp.
The GNU allows the original author to maintain ownership by insisting that and holder retain the original contract and release the code freely.
I am against a company purchasing something and then deleting the original intent or author who created it. It's counter-industrial.
So I think a good protest term for GNU would be AUTHOR'S INTENT for CONSUMER'S RIGHTS.
or GNU: AVOID STINKY SOFTWARE
or CREATIVE COMMONS: ALLOW GOOD VIBES TO REACH YOUR EARS.or CREATIVE COMMONS: STOP PAY TO PLAY. We will not pay EXTRA to release our music anymore! We will not allow our music to be filtered by non-consumers!
I envision a solid future where products are very quality because on efficiency (think about the spaceships and other high end tech) of original intent, while other companies help each other out by not being redundant and recreating the same design over and over;.because they destroyed the original one. Everyone usually agrees that there's nothing better then the original.
Also we are living in a society of waste and redundancy. This can't happen anymore because tech has become too fast, as we build houses and things so quick, we need to slow down and promote more quality if we are to survive.
Instead of thinking about what we have we are thinking how much more we need all the time. This 'more' stuff has to stop.
non-free products is just a preemptive move by companies to maximize their profits by limiting resources with false scarcity.
- by yeah_1_us March 25, 2009 2:29 PM PDT
- nothing could be better, finaly I'm going to have my dreams come through, and, having some software for I cannot afford the prices, thanks a million, and the Eternal father protect you and affiliates from malware, incredible, microsoft is also up to no good, I've lost three computers because of them, how about that eh!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(12 Comments)