Je ne suis pas spécialiste de la question, mais je trouve interessant les débats autour de l'ébauche de GPLv3. Linus Torvalds, créateur de Linux, reste opposé à la GPLv3. Pour info, la première ébauche de la GPLv3 interdisait l'usage de DRM dans les logiciels libres sous GPL. Il s'agit pour lui un problème de sécurité dans l'obligation faite aux développeurs de livrer leurs clés de signature.
La nouvelle version publiée le 27 juillet 2006 par la Free Software Foundation (FSF) ne semble toujours pas le satisfaire:
En tant que développeur, je comprends l'analyse de Linus bien que d'horison different; mais en qu'utilisateur, je suis plutôt sensible aux arguments de Stallman. C'est d'ailluers pour ça que j'ai signé la pétition. Comme indiqué dans le post, la GPLv3 est conçue du point de vue de l'utilisateur en général. Elle n'a pas été écrite juste pour Linux...
D'un autre côté, comme expliqué ici, contrôler le logiciel qu'un hardware fait tourner est la vocation du DRM. C'est justement interdit par la GPLv3. Dans ce marché imposé de force par les politiques, ça exclut toute concurrence. C'est un problème pour le développeur. Cela dit, je préfère la philosophie orientée consommateur.
Vous en pensez quoi?
La nouvelle version publiée le 27 juillet 2006 par la Free Software Foundation (FSF) ne semble toujours pas le satisfaire:
(forum avec Linus Torvalds) a écrit:Sorry, Linus
Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 01:24 PM EDT
I am sorry, Linus, but I had to remove your comment because you violated our comments policy by swearing so much. Please read the comments policy linked on the left. Believe it or not, it keeps the atmosphere here one where ideas can be expressed without the personal attacks that I find deeply offensive no matter who does it.
Now, because I don't want anyone to miss the meat of what you said, here it is without the sauce:Well, not legally, regardless, I cannot help but feel you are ignoring the other side of the coin. You talk about "fairness", and yes, I agree, the GPLv2 is fair -- for developers, but not for me, the user.
That's [deleted], and you should be ashamed of being such a whiner.
First off, the developers are the ones that are doing this for you in the first place. So by definition, their opinion and feelings do matter more. They don't owe you anything, and any user who talks about this being "unfair" is just whining.
But more importantly, you're fundamentally wrong. I tried to explain to you why you were wrong, but either I did a bad job, or (more likely), you're just not interested in listening.
My explanation for why the GPLv3 is bad is that if you make your decisions based on fear and loathing, they will be the wrong ones.
The whole point about the changes in the GPLv3 is to be "against" something else. That's how the FSF has always acted, and I don't know if you remember (or ever saw) the animosity between the BSD camps and the GPL camps, but a lot of it was because of how the FSF was preaching their religion as if it was "evil" to do anything else, even with the GPLv2.
And [deleted], I'm proud of the fact that Linux helped change that mental landscape. There were other projects (and certainly other people) too, but Linux was one big part of the movement away from that horrible "us vs them" mindset.
And the fact is, by being pragmatic and not being too crazy about it, the "Open Source" people ended up making open source a lot more accessible to a lot more users, and they made the software better too. Because when you make your technical choices on technical grounds, rather than on religious ones, they end up being better.
In other words, my stance is not at all "leaving the users behind". Quite the reverse. I'm the one that tries to guarantee that we make decisions that make sense from a technology standpoint, which in turn means that our users will have a better system, rather than one that is hobbled by non-technical limitations.
Just as a very concrete example, the anti-DRM stance of the GPLv3 is not only anti-Tivo, it's also anti-security. Exactly because it tries to make a non-technical stand on a technical issue, one that has very real impact on real behaviour.
The fact is, that signed binaries are not only a good idea, they are an integral part of pretty much any security scheme. Every time you do a "yum upgrade", you tend to be getting a lot of binary packages that were signed with a key that you are not going to get access to, because if you had access to that key, the whole security model would break down.
So a sane person will not say "you cannot stop execution of a binary based on a key that users don't have access to", because a sane person realizes that this is very fundamental technology, and that it's a technical issue, not a political one.
And any time you let your fears or your politics make what should be technical choices, the end result is inevitably crap, crap, crap. And the GPLv3 makes exactly those kinds of technical choices, on exactly that kind of non-technical basis.
And I'm trying to protect users from idiots that think that it's a good idea to make technical choices on non-technical grounds. Notice how the GPLv2 (the good one) didn't do that. It even made expressly clear that the act of "running" the program was not restricted in any way, shape or form.
Here's a quote from section 0 in GPLv2 that is totally gone in version 3, and people should think long and hard about the fact that the new version is a big change in this area:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
So do me a favour, and stop talking [deleted], and start actually thinking deeper about the very fundamental changes that the GPLv3 introduces. Also, do give the people who actually wrote the code that the license is supposed to cover some respect.
So that is what Linus wrote, and now here is my response: First, the GPL wasn't written just for Linux. It was written for everybody, including end users, so it's simply not true that developers should get a louder voice. Linux is one GPL entity, but it isn't they only one, by a long shot. So Linux uses the GPL, not the other way around.
By that I mean the GPL is useful to Linux, but it wasn't designed for it.
That is what is so unique about the GPL. It cares about end users, and Linus, we end users care about more than just having great tech. I want to own my computer in the sense that I want to know what it is doing and I want to be the one that decides what it does. I want to be able to modify the code myself.
Finally, I believe you are repeating your misunderstanding about binary drivers. Really. You need to stop saying that about security. There is nothing in the GPLv3 that I've seen that says you have to provide the keys to the binaries.
En tant que développeur, je comprends l'analyse de Linus bien que d'horison different; mais en qu'utilisateur, je suis plutôt sensible aux arguments de Stallman. C'est d'ailluers pour ça que j'ai signé la pétition. Comme indiqué dans le post, la GPLv3 est conçue du point de vue de l'utilisateur en général. Elle n'a pas été écrite juste pour Linux...
D'un autre côté, comme expliqué ici, contrôler le logiciel qu'un hardware fait tourner est la vocation du DRM. C'est justement interdit par la GPLv3. Dans ce marché imposé de force par les politiques, ça exclut toute concurrence. C'est un problème pour le développeur. Cela dit, je préfère la philosophie orientée consommateur.
Vous en pensez quoi?
-
*genium*
- Messages : 382
