blogs : lxo : Blonging for Freedom

2009-06-12-linux-2.6.30-libre.en

Sat Jun 13 00:19:28 2009

Wow, I didn't quite expect linux-2.6.30 to come out this week. I hadn't been able to get my hands onto the 2.6.30 rcs through the entire cycle, save for a few hours circa rc2 or so.

Lucky for me, on the 9th I got a time slot to fix a few deblobbing bugs in earler releases of Linux-libre, and when I was about done with it, Linus published 2.6.30. Turns out deblobbing a release is so much easier that deblobbing the rc patches. Thank you, Linus! :-)

Anyhow... With 2.6.30 out of the way, I guess I'll go back to trying to speed up deblob-check, and to back-port the gen3 deblobbing machinery to 2.6.26 and earlier.

But this will probably have to wait until I finish writing a couple articles, preparing and delivering one new speech and some GCC patches, all before the end of June.

So blong...

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

2009-05-11-isca-anzol-rede.en

Mon May 11 18:37:49 2009

The second issue of Revista Espírito Livre (Free Spirit Magazine), with the Portuguese version of the article The Bait, The Hook and The Wide Net, about the risks of computing in the cloud for schools of users, in a fishing allegory.

So blong...

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

2009-03-31-linux-2.6.29-libre.en

Tue Mar 31 21:48:01 2009

I've just uploaded the latest releases of Linux-libre: 2.6.29-libre, 2.6.28.9-libre2 and 2.6.28-libre2.

While at that, I've been kind of trying to get myself to microblog every now and then at indenti.ca, in case you want to keep up.

So blong...

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

2009-03-06-copying-and-sharing-in-self-defense.en

Fri Mar 6 19:10:21 2009

Wow. Just wow!

Pavel Kharitonov tells me he translated the article "Copying and Sharing in Self Defense" to Russian!

Thanks, Pavel!

So blong...

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

2008-10-16-I-am-a-PC.en

Thu Oct 16 08:52:18 2008

So blong...

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

2008-08-11-linux-libre-and-freed-ora.en

Mon Aug 11 21:06:33 2008

Bruce Byfield asked me a number of questions about Fedora Freedom and Linux-libre back in mid July, for this article.

Oddly, he contacted me shortly after the longest thread ever started on fedora-list, and the article was published shortly before the threads spun out of it finally died.

Anyhow... The article seems to have triggered some interesting reactions in the Debian community, as well as the usual unsubstantiated FUD.

As for the Fedora discussions, a number of people seem to have got the impression that the entire thread was about the same topic. This couldn't be farther from the truth.

It started addressing the question of why Fedora fails to abide by the Guidelines for Free System Distributions, but flame bait quickly hijacked the thread into a long argument about the appropriateness of calling the combination of the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux, which amounted to a large part of the thread and sub-threads. That part was further hijacked into a continuation of a one-month-before thread about the GPL on fedora-devel, and a some sub-threads went on to discuss differences between Open Source and Free Software movements, GPLv3, copyleft, and Free Software business models.

I like to collect posts in which I think I was fortunate in presenting the ideas, to be able to refer to them myself when similar situations arise. And then, it's also nice to be able to refer people to this list of postings, to get to some valuable bits without having to sift through several hundred messages.

On GNU+Linux naming, that I wrote about before, I'd like to highlight the exposure of the "Linux applications" fallacy, Linus' original take on it, the GNUdist olympics, the sub-thread a long rebuttal to the Linux-is-the-engine fallacy, particularly the reasoning that would lead to naming distros after GNU grub, and the sub-thread with subject creating an operating system with Linux but without GNU, not even autoconf stuff.

There are social reasons why this name matters to us; please help.

On differences between Open Source and Free Software movements, I'd like to highlight the differences in principles and strategy, summarized and expanded, and some of the attacks on us and contradictions.

On alleged restrictions established by the GPL, I'll highlight what a pure license is, discussion on conditioned permissions and the sub-thread Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions, especially the translation of GPLv2's 2b "restriction".

On copyleft, I'll highlight the creation of "competing" copyleft licenses and their hamrful consequences, and the goals of copyleft, and the Short Strong Copyleft License.

On GPL compatibility, I'll highlight the practical issue with the original BSD license, and OpenBSD contradictions.

On GPLv3, I'll highlight its anti-DRM provisions.

This summary couldn't be complete without the apology. In fact, I'm sure it's not complete even with it. But it ought to be enough.

So blong,

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

2008-07-21-gnu+linux.en

Mon Jul 21 20:03:01 2008

A number of people express this kind of reaction (quoted below) when reminded that Linux is a kernel, and that they're actually running the GNU operating system on top of it. Here's one possible response to it.

I really could not care less what it is called, just that the bleedin' thing works.

If you don't care, then wouldn't object to calling it GNU/Linux, right?

That's all some of the authors of a lot of the bleedin' thing you're running ask of you, to help extend to others the freedoms they worked hard to give you, by writing this very software, and laying the ground for the rest of it. Pretty please!

Please at least try to show some respect and gratitude for their efforts, and to let others make an informed decision about on whose side of the F/OS debate they are, if any, rather than inducing them to believe that this was all the result of the effort of the man who happened, just for fun, to cross the Finnish :-) line, after they had taken the baton nearly all the way, to give you and everyone freedom.

Please don't hide behind such poor excuses as "everyone else calls it Linux" or "Linux is shorter and more convenient". You're not everyone else (one would hope you're better than that), and GNU is actually shorter than Linux.

It took a lot of work to write all this GNU software, *far* more than writing Linux and porting all components of the GNU operating system but its kernel to run with it. Saying or writing GNU or GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux to refer to it is not even close to being as inconvenient as writing all of that software yourself, or not having the freedoms to run, study, adapt, share and improve, which these GNU people worked hard to provide you with.

Giving them the credit they deserve is the least you can do. Helping us reach more people, not only with the software, but also with the philosophy of freedom, would be a plus, and this is the reason we ask you to do so.

Please don't deny us the only thing we humbly ask of you.

Thanks,

Edit Link Top

But what about the GPL?

At this point someone often comes back with theories that the GPL makes demands and imposes restrictions, and conclude from this failed understanding of the GPL that we do indeed ask more of you.

Please remember that the GPL doesn't take away any right that you had. It doesn't demand or even request anything. It grants permissions that are enough to respect your four essential freedoms with regard to a piece of software covered by it, while defending everyone else's same freedoms. If you find yourself in a situation in which you think the GPL prevents you from doing something, you're misunderstanding the GPL. The restrictions you might actually be under stem from copyright law and/or from other restrictions you accepted before.

Edit Link Top

See also

• 2007-05-21-gnu+linux
• 2007-07-19-gnu+linux
• http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
• http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html
• http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html
• http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

So blong...

Discussion (1) Loading... Vote up Vote down

2008-07-18-authoriterrorism.en

Fri Jul 18 20:36:42 2008

Last week, FSFLA published an announcement about a horrible authoriterrorism and on-line surveillance bill that was about to be approved by the Senate under the pretense of fighting pedophilia.

The bill was approved by the Senate at 11 PM, some 60 hours later. Now it goes back to the House of Representatives, and then, if approved, to the president, who could still veto it.

At this point, the only possible changes are removal of portions or rephrasing for clarification; no further additions. Even before the bill reached the House of Representatives, a request for it to be handled urgently was already filed.

I've blogged a lot about it, in the Portuguese version of "Blonging for Freedom". Unless you can read Portuguese, it won't mean much to you. However, my friend Pablo Lorenzoni translated the bill and blogged about it in English.

So now people out there can have as much trouble as we do believing such a terrible bill could be on the way to become a threat to everyone in Brazil.

Please spread the word.

So blong...

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

2008-07-13-IPmagine.en

Mon Jul 14 01:54:05 2008

I read at Groklaw that John Lennon's heirs are part of the conspiracy that's trying to steal fair use from us all. So I came up with this IParody.

So blong...

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

2008-07-02-against-DRM-law-in-Canada.en

Wed Jul 2 22:56:40 2008

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/fight-the-canadian-dmca

Subject: DRM versus society
From: Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org>
To: Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca, Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca, Verner.J@parl.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca
Cc: anti-drm@fsfla.org
Organization: FSF Latin America

Copyright was originally designed to benefit society, but mislabeling creative works as property has been used in the digital age to justify measures that deprive society of both the works and the benefits.

Copyright was an incentive to creativity, to the publication of creative works, through a temporary limited monopoly granted to authors. Once the monopoly expired, the status prior to copyright law was restored: everyone could share and build upon the covered work.

Respecting the monopoly was everyone's short-term sacrifice for the long-term availability of more and better creative works. And it was a small sacrifice, for the term was short, and publishing was costly and difficult regardless of copyrights and fair use rights.

The mind-twisting phrase "intellectual property" turned upside-down the logic behind this sacrifice: instead of serving society, the law became a tool to defend intermediaries' interests that take away both from society and from the authors they claim to represent.

Creative works are intangible, and thus non-rival, expressions. It does not make sense to regard them as property. Indeed, copyright law does not regulate the enjoyment of such creative works.

However, mislabeling them as property has enabled these intermediaries to fool society into accepting extensions of copyright monopolies, contradicting their very purpose: to make more creative works available to the society, after a short period of deprivation.

In the digital age, it became much easier for anyone to create and publish creative works. It could have been a great benefit to society.

But mislabeling such works as property has enabled the same intermediaries to fool society into accepting such insulting and costly measures as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) to patrol and police uses of the works, to preserve the intermediaries' obsolete business model.

DRM amounts to using general-purpose and specialized computers, such as audio and video recorders and players, to stop the public from using works in ways that are permitted by copyright law, but that might enable future copyright infringement, regardless of whether any infringement actually takes place or is even planned.

The public at large is thus proclaimed guilty of pre-crime, and denied the benefits of technological advancements, of fair use rights and even of the public domain.

Welcoming into law the presumption of guilt for whatever rules the intermediaries manage to encode, in the devices necessary to enjoy the creative works they publish, would turn the intermediaries into private legislators and law enforcement agents in the digital age.

Having just visited Canada, I could have been fined and emprisoned if Bill C-61 was in effect, just because I carry in my computer movies, songs, and software needed to play them, even though copyright law does not require a license for such works to be enjoyed or carried.

I would be disgusted if Canadian legislators were to pass a law that required major sacrifices of everyone for the sake of promoting (my?!?) interests whose very legitimacy can only appear to be justifiable through the mental contortions of "intellectual property".

I, as author and copyright holder, do not side with the intermediaries that claim to defend my interests when they lobby for this law.

Please do not move copyright law farther away from the goal of every law: benefiting the society that establishes it.

Thank you,

–
Alexandre Oliva

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

Loading... Vote up Vote down