[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/tech/ - Technology

"Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature" - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


I'm a little late to the party, but I now realize we live in an era where billions of devices are using copyleft software (the Linux kernel) yet somehow get away with restricting their users' freedom. How do they get away with it? Is this the "Tivoization" Richard Stallman talked about that was a major impetus for developing GPLv3? Can this all be traced back to Linus refusing to upgrade when GPLv3 was released in 2007? How the fuck did things get so bad?


Corpo knew the kernel devs' vote on gplv3 was coming. They were desperate to avoid not just the anti-tivo but the anti-drm provisions. They flooded the kernel devs with corpo plants, with actual skills, to swing the vote. This worked. At this point Linus could have switched the kernel to gplv3 by fiat as the bdfl, based on the argument that the vote of the pre-corpo-flood devs went massively in favor of gplv3. Instead he showed himself to be a corpo sellout without a shred of backbone by putting his seal of approval on the corpo-flood-devs' vote. This is why he feels the need to refer to the people who have the moral fiber to put freedom before corpo gravy as "extremists".


Corporations can't coopt free as in freedom software, only open source shit. That's why they are actively against licenses like the GPL but are fine with "cuck" licenses such as MIT.


If the Linux kernel was GPLv3, it wouldn't make a difference to the average user. There's no tivoization in your generic computer.


The average Linux user now is a smartphone user subjected to Tivoization.


I don't know enough about legalese to make a judgement, but Stallman seems to think that gpl v3 is better at protecting user freedoms. While others think that it's not important.

One thing that has to be noted, 2 developments are happening simultaneously.
One trend is bad and corporations are screwing up technology
The other trend is good, you can get more gadgets and more software that are open and free now than previously.

I tend to think Stallman is more correct, but Stallmans vision lacks a way to make normies care enough and a theoretical concept of making incremental gains.

>There's no tivoization in your generic computer.
Yes that is true, although there is a hair in that soup as well. Very few computers run with free and open source microcode. And that might matter at some point in the future, even if the reason is not entirely obvious now.

Smartphones don't entirely qualify as computers imho. Spec-wise smartphones are undeniably computers but you can't use a smartphone to reprogram it, at least with the current user input schemes it's not practical to use a smartphone as a fully featured computer.


File: 1656571903410.png (634.5 KB, 540x788, 442.png)

The answer is simple RMS is limited and from a different era. A pre internet era. Nothing in the GPL says that you can not make a software that spies on its users and pushes this all to a server.

The GPL only gives you access to code.

RMS on some level understands this

This is also why most corporations do not give a shit and make their programs GPL. Since all the spicy code and data is on the server the client can be as GPL as it wants.


"Tivoization" is actually nonsense and RMS needs to twist his arguments like pretzels to make them, "Tivoization" is actually a good thing for the community.


>Very few computers run with free and open source microcode.
do we have any?


File: 1656573223250.jpg (57.38 KB, 1244x646, 6115417_sd.jpg)


I think I should explain "Tivoization" here is the ting no one understands what this even is. And this is the biggest argent ageist it.
Sure I do not understand nuclear physics however I also do not understand the street schizo.

Apparently "Tivoization" is so nonsensical that GPL 3 needs to use special rules that define medical devices as NOT Tivoization. This should really tell you something.

So here is what I deduced.
Tivo made their code under GPL 2.
Tivo made a hardware that did run this program
Tivo made some bios part that prevented anything that was not official tivo code unable to run.
This is le bad Tivoization.

Several things should pause you here.

There are several problems here even if they are super obscure legal shit.
1) Is this even legally valid ?
2) Lets say I create some program. Someone takes my program and makes a hardware that in the bios checks the MD5 checksum of the program. Now this device gets sold.

Question is this Tivoization ?
Am I now responsible under the GPL 3 for this ?

How the fuck can the GPL cover hardware and should it ?

3) From 1 and 2 I conclude that Tivoization is a good thing. I mean Tivo will sell their hardware boxes to normies and give back code to the community because GPL 2. If you want the software you can run it on your own hardware like the raspberry Pi. This filters the normies since they need to either make a device like this themselves or buy one in the stores so they buy it in the stores.
I think Tivoization and GPL 3 are the moment RMS lost his mind.

PS: Is Tivo even relevant today in the age of streaming ?


> What is tivoization? How does GPLv3 prevent it? (#Tivoization)

> Some devices utilize free software that can be upgraded, but are designed so that users are not allowed to modify that software. There are lots of different ways to do this; for example, sometimes the hardware checksums the software that is installed, and shuts down if it doesn't match an expected signature. The manufacturers comply with GPLv2 by giving you the source code, but you still don't have the freedom to modify the software you're using. We call this practice tivoization.

> When people distribute User Products that include software under GPLv3, section 6 requires that they provide you with information necessary to modify that software. User Products is a term specially defined in the license; examples of User Products include portable music players, digital video recorders, and home security systems.

> Suppose that two companies try to circumvent the requirement to provide Installation Information by having one company release signed software, and the other release a User Product that only runs signed software from the first company. Is this a violation of GPLv3? (#TwoPartyTivoization)

> Yes. If two parties try to work together to get around the requirements of the GPL, they can both be pursued for copyright infringement. This is especially true since the definition of convey explicitly includes activities that would make someone responsible for secondary infringement.

> What is Free Software?

> “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

> You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

> The four essential freedoms

> A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms: [1]

> + The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

> + The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
> + The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
> + The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

> A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.

> Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

> 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

> “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

> If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

> The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network.

> Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.

= = = = DMCA = = = =

> 3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.

> No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.

> When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.


>most corporations make their programs GPL
rofl citation needed


>Tivo made some bios part that prevented anything that was not official tivo code unable to run.
>This is le bad Tivoization.
Correct, it is bad. Users should have control over their computing, that's the whole fucking point of free software. It's hard to understand how someone has difficulty grasping this concept unless they're arguing in bad faith.


It's actually pretty simple, code that is inherently anti-social (see >>15684) is disrespectful to the community and user. And clearly allowing it has been a net negative for the community over the past decade. The idea that more code = better (also most of this 'more code' priorititizes corporations business needs not users especially in the kernel) , is actually the Apple argument (they probably can say they have best security in the market rn) - fsf has always chosen adaptability over convenience.

RMS is in some respects more Marxist than most Marxists (his arguments always boil down to some form of fully social production unfettered by a market) but he unfortunately or not wraps his language in burger-loving terms like freedom.


a computer is something that computes
smartphones are embedded computers, but still computers


> RMS is in some respects more Marxist than most Marxists

RMS is actuallly liberal and a little anti-communist in some aspects. He is someone that we respect because he did a lot for free software philosophy, but that and the fact he doesn't talks about private property but only proprietary software makes him a lot limited.


> RMS is actuallly liberal
> and the fact he doesn't talks about private property

>Any deal that commits the state not to build alternate competing facilities is a direct surrender of public power to a business. These deals ought to be canceled by a constitutional amendment if necessary. If the government's hands are tied, so it cannot make a deal to privatize certain state assets, great! That is the goal.

>This is an example of a general principle: privatizing a government activity makes it unaccountable, and the businesses cheat. Private prisons should be abolished. In general, no government activity should be privatized, unless there is no reason for the government to be involved at all.

>Occasionally the state does something there is no need for the state to do, because it works for people to get that something privately from a competitive market (properly regulated, to be sure, and assuming that the state makes sure people don't fall into poverty). In that case, the state can simply stop that activity and leave it to private business. However, outsourcing a state activity to a business is never a good policy. It leads to low pay for the workers and bad, unaccountable service for the public

>A giant international monopoly of privatized water is being formed. Privatization of water for residential use should not be allowed.

>Senator Warren is pushing for closer oversight of Blackrock, because it is so big it endangers the overall economy. I think this is a good first step, but the right thing to do is make Blackrock split up. And other large companies in this and other fields.



> RMS is actuallly liberal
> and the fact he doesn't talks about private property

>Dennis Kucinich, who is now running for president, started his political career by opposing privatization of electric power in Cleveland. If you were blacked out last week, vote for Kucinich!

""" […] In 1992, investor owned utilities pushed the Democratic House to pass HR776 which granted electric utilities broad powers. The bill was supposed to restructure the electric utility industry to spur competition.

Utilities used deregulation to affect a series of mergers limiting competition. In order to accelerate profits, cost cutting ensued, involving the layoff of thousands of utility company employees, including some who where responsible for maintenance of generation, transmission, and distribution systems. A number of investor-owned utilities stopped investing in the maintenance and repair of their own equipment, and, instead, cut costs to enhance the value of their stock rather than spending money to enhance the value of their service.


Early in my career, in the 1970s, I watched FirstEnergy's predecessor, CEI, as it was hard at work trying to undermine the ability of the City of Cleveland to operate its own municipal electric system. CEI conducted a tireless crusade to attempt to put the city's publicly owned system, Muny Light, out of business. Muny Light competed against CEI in a third of the city and provided municipal power customers with savings on their electric bill of 20-30 percent. It also provided cheaper electricity for 76 city facilities and thousands of Cleveland street lights, saving taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

An antitrust review revealed that CEI had committed numerous violations of federal antitrust law in its attempt to put Muny Light out of business. CEI worked behind the scenes to block Muny Light from purchasing power from other power companies. CEI became the only power company Muny Light could buy from. At that point, CEI sharply increased and sometimes tripled the cost of purchase power to Muny Light. And, as a result, Muny Light began to lose money. CEI used Muny Light's weakened operational and financial condition (which they created) as evidence of the public system's lack of viability and as proof that the only way the people of Cleveland could have reliable power was for the city to sell its electric system to CEI.

Throughout this period, the Cleveland media, which received substantial advertising revenues from CEI, crusaded against the city's ownership of a municipal electric system. In 1976, after years of work to undermine Muny Light, CEI finally succeeded in getting the mayor and the council of Cleveland to agree to sell Muny Light, giving CEI a monopoly on electric power in the Cleveland area and enabling CEI to greatly expand its rate base to get more revenue to pay for its rapidly mounting expenses associated with building nuclear power plants.


The Muny Light issue came to a head on December 15, 1978, when Ohio's largest bank, Cleveland Trust, the 33rd largest bank in America at that time, told me that they would not renew the city's credit on 15 million dollars worth of loans taken out by the previous administration unless I would agree to sell Cleveland's municipally owned utility to CEI.

On that day, by that time, the sale of Muny Light was being promoted by both Cleveland newspapers, virtually all of the radio and TV stations in town, the entire business community, all the banks, both political parties, and several unions, as well as a majority of the Cleveland City Council. All I had to do was to sign my name to legislation and the system would have sold and the city credit "protected." The chairman of Cleveland Trust even offered 50 million dollars of new credit if I would agree to sell Muny Light. """


> RMS is actuallly liberal
> and the fact he doesn't talks about private property

> Here's an example of resistance: in Bolivia, the inhabitants of El Alto (which lies between La Paz and its airport) are once again taking to the streets, because President Mesa refuses to cancel the privatization of their water. It is a mistake to even think of compensating the privateers for their "investment" in something fundamentally exploitive. Kicking them out without a cent would teach "investors" a salutary lesson about the risks of "investing" in charging poor people exorbitantly for water.

> This fits a standard pattern–companies say "We can do this better and cheaper than the state", but they make it no better, only more expensive. By now, this argument won't fool anyone, except those who want to be fooled. Alas, that usually includes the corporate-owned politicians and the corporate-owned media.

> Many activities are best done by the state, and privatizing them is typically an excuse for a few to enrich themselves to the detriment of the public.

> Because building a new highway is so politically difficult, as well as expensive, there is effectively no competition in the road market, so highway privatization is obviously harmful for the public. This practice is nothing more than raiding the public treasury. it ought to be a crime.


Essentially, Mark Tarver and Xah Lee are right. Modern FOSS exists to be co-opted by corporations who get unpaid bitchwork out of naive and gullible programmers. It's a feature, not a bug, of the open source movement.


RMS is a liberal because he insists on not only making the code available to rightoids, but explicitly prohibiting political restrictions on who can use GPL'd software.

"Free as in freedom" is a liberal philosophy.


what do right wingers need FOSS for? browsing twitter and facebook and imageboards can already be done on windows


>FOSS co-opted by corporations
That does happen sometimes, but FOSS is progressive compared to proprietary Software monopolies.
Without FOSS there would be nothing else than proprietary corporate hell-ware.

>RMS is a liberal because he insists on not only making the code available to rightoids, but explicitly prohibiting political restrictions on who can use GPL'd software.
RMS is just smarter than you.
You can't enforce a software license that excludes right wing people. Courts won't uphold that. Undoubtedly some right-wingers contribute useful gpl software. You'd just loose those contributions, without gaining anything in return.
And the bourgeois legal system will not let it self be instrumentalised to enforce political restrictions they disagree with. It's idealism to think you can change the world with law.

Some people have made variations on the GPL that only allow cooperatives, non-profit and non-military -organizations to use it.
It's not clear if that would be upheld in courts. It's mostly irrelevant because if you license code with GPLv3 most big corporations will avoid it anyway. And military doesn't give a shit about any of this, if they like your software, they will use it, regardless what you write in the license text. They have firepower and you have a text file in a git repository.

>"Free as in freedom" is a liberal philosophy.

It's not a philosophy, it's a slogan.

When we finally beat capitalism, and establish a fully planned cybernetic socialism, we will continue the FOSS system as is.
Because the software that came out of it has good quality and it doesn't abuse computer users, it's also a fairly efficient way of organizing software production. It has less overhead than propriety software production in corporations. It works and the result is good, we keep it.

You are right that FOSS isn't over-throwing capitalism, but you are wrong to expect it to. Masses of people have to change the underlying economic system, to change capitalism into socialism. Computers are not the revolutionary subject, that will overthrow capitalism for you if you put socialist code into them. Computers are important to socialism because the raw processing power enables the possibility to make a economic planning algorithm that is better at calculating prices for commodities than capitalists interpreting market signals. That is the technological potential for change, but you have to gain political and economic power to realize it.


>Modern FOSS exists to be co-opted by corporations
you mean open source, foss is actively rejected by corporations you dumb fuck


RMS lost, ESR won. Deal with it. I will not honor your little distinction without a difference. In fact, I will all-too-wittingly misuse those terms to annoy the likes of you.


4chin moment


True, I was being a little troll. Maybe my use of FOSS software is turning me into a typical /g/ poster. Brb, I'm closing my Firefox App to open up Safari. My replies will be more polite from this point on.


>Progressive campaign The Great Slate was successful in raising funds for candidates in part by asking for contributions from tech workers in return for not posting similar quotes by Raymond. Matasano Security employee and Great Slate fundraiser Thomas Ptacek said, "I’ve been torturing Twitter with lurid Eric S. Raymond quotes for years. Every time I do, 20 people beg me to stop." It is estimated that as of March 2018 over $30,000 has been raised in this way.


Yes, he is a pedo and a racist. I hope that $30,000 goes towards BLM and not some bad open source project.


why are you coping?


""" Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
by Richard Stallman

The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.

When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential >>15684 freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”

These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.


The nontrivial case is harmful and important. Many products containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users from effectively using different executables; only one privileged company can make executables that can run in the device and use its full capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants,” and the practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo) where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free source code, and nominally carries a free license, the users cannot usefully run modified versions of it, so the executable is de-facto nonfree.

Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux, even though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2. (We designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this practice; too bad Linux did not adopt it.) These executables, made from source code that is open source and free, are generally spoken of as “open source,” but they are not free software. """


How is that a cope? ESR's racism and his lolbertarian "it's ephebophilia, bro" takes are both well documented.


> RMS is actuallly liberal
> and the fact he doesn't talks about private property
> RMS is a ${pick label for either side} because he insists on not only making the code available to ${pick the other label}, but explicitly prohibiting political restrictions on who can use GPL'd software.

+++ >>15771 >>15773 >>15778

> The main cause of these debt traps is the expectation that the exploitative loans will be repayed. Therefore, what really is needed is for debtor countries to start simply canceling their debts. Once rich people learn that by trying to exploit poor countries this way they are likely to lose, they will stop.

> Venezuela's president Chavez says he will re-nationalize energy and telephone companies that were privatized by a previous government. It makes no sense to privatize state operations that do not operate in competitive markets.

> Business does not practice honesty except when outside pressure compels it to do so. Privatized government is therefore dishonest government.


What is this from?


his wikipedia article

Unique IPs: 11

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]