[kde-community] Request to join the Kde incubator for GCompris

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi Kevin,

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:59:19 +0100
Kevin Krammer <krammer at kde.org> wrote:

> On Friday, 2014-02-14, 13:02:31, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Hi Aaron,
> > 
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:17:05 +0100
> > 
> > "Aaron J. Seigo" <aseigo at kde.org> wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 14, 2014 04:24:12 Shlomi Fish wrote:
> 
> > > > The VideoLAN / VLC project took the opposite approach and after being
> > > > unhappy with the GPLv3, decided to convert all their GPLv2 code into
> > > > LGPLv2.
> > > 
> > > I can name two likely reasons: DRM and tivoization clauses.
> > > 
> > > Indeed, there is no one-size-fits-all license.
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > BTW, regarding the so-called "Tivoisation", from what I recall reading on
> > http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/ , the whole story was that Tivo
> > contacted the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation (FSF)
> > asking whether the practise of signing the kernel was allowed by the GPLv2.
> > After consulting their lawyers, the FSF replied "Yes , it's OK, thanks for
> > asking.". Then after Tivo became popular, this practice was deemed
> > non-desireable and Richard Stallman nicknamed it "Tiovization" after Tivo
> > despite the fact that earlier the FSF told Tivo that it was acceptable.
> 
> I doubt that the FSF has any problem with cryptography being used to protect 
> users from software from untrusted sources so I doubt that they do not 
> consider signing acceptable.
> 
> The problem with Tivo, as far as I understand, is not them signing their 
> binaries and checking that signature before execution.
> The problem is that Tivo does not provide an adequate mechanism to register 
> new keys. Which of course denies the user at least one of the four core 
> principles of Free Software.
> 
> I doubt that Tivo asked the FSF whether withholding one of the Four Freedoms 
> would be OK and the FSF said yes. I doubt they would even need to ask their 
> legal counsels.

For reference, see http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.elitists/12768 - but
I'm not sure if the sources in this thread cite their sources. In any case,
free-and-open-source-software (FOSS) *can* be used to deprive people of their
freedoms. For example, I can use GNU Awk (under GPLv3) to
automatically sublicense the sources of an X11Led under a proprietary licence
and then sell this to whoever wants to buy it (after possible modifying it).
One thing the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition [1]
says is that the program can be used for any purpose (arguably linking against
GPLed code from non-GPL compatible code is such a purpose, but... ask the FSF,
not me - I just work here).

Similarly the GPLv2 allows for such limiting of freedoms either because it
overlooked that, or by design. I might as well argue that the X11 licence is
not a FOSS licence because it allows derived copies to be proprietary or to be
protected by restrictive patents.

Arguably, all that is off-topic here.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

[1] - I should note that the story according to Bruce Perens is that there
wasn't a commonly agreeable definition for what "free software" was before he
formulated the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and that when he sent them to
Richard Stallman , Stallman replied that they were acceptable. However, after
the Debian Free Software Guidelines were converted to the Open Source
Definition, then Stallman formulated and published his own (and more exclusive)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition as a possible way to
distinguish "Free Software" from "Open Source Software" and the hype
surrounding the latter.


> 
> Cheers,
> Kevin
> 



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
Why I Love Perl - http://shlom.in/joy-of-perl

Wikipedia deletionists Don’t Die. They lose notability and get deleted.
    — http://www.shlomifish.org/humour.html

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .