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

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

2008-05-30-olpc-libre-de-windows-en-colombia.en

Fri May 30 23:46:53 2008

I read at BBC that Caldas, a Colombian department, decided to purchase X0 laptops for their children. The news piece mentions the agreement between OLPC and Microsoft and suggests they want to load Windows XP on the computers there.

However, my friends in Colombia, involved in testing and development of OLPC, ensure me that what the governor wants is not Windows, but rather to foment the development of Free Hardware and Software and MIT Media Lab projects in Colombia, for OLPC.

Why is the reference to XP there, then? Who could be interested in conflating the rationales for Caldas' government's decision with the agreement between OLPC and Microsoft?

How long until Microsoft and Intel offer them Classmate PC with Windows, like they did at so many other countries that claimed to be interested in X0 with GNU/Linux?

We'll see...

So blong...

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

2008-03-30-linux-libre.en

Mon Mar 31 04:55:14 2008

About a week ago, I started working on packaging 100% Free Linux kernels for Fedora.

A number of people don't realize that the kernel distributed by Linus Torvalds isn't entirely Free Software. There are various pieces of binary-only code and other incomprehensible sequences of numbers that harm freedom #1: the freedom to study the source code, and to change it to do what you wish.

Well, a binary encoded as a sequence of numbers is not really source code, and if you don't the source code for that binary, you don't have freedom #1. So, a 100% Free Software program can't contain such sequences.

But there's more: even if it's not code, if you can't understand the sequences so as to be able to change them such that the program does what you wish, you still don't have freedom #1.

It's at this point that NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) for documentation used in the development of drivers renders the code non-Free. Even if people do get actual source code, it's intentionally deprived of documentation as to the meaning of e.g. hardware registers, to the point that you can still modify it freely, but you can't modify it such that it does what you wish.

Of course, not all insufficiently documented initializer makes the code non-Free. It depends on how the people who wrote the code came about the sequences, and whether they're entitled to share information that got them there. Restrictions on sharing hardware documentation or restrictive licensing terms for copyrighted sequences may render the code non-Free, let alone incompatible with the GNU GPLv2, under which Linux is licensed.

I thank FSFLA for encouraging me to work on this, to the point of permitting me to host the scripts, sources and binaries at its servers.

I'm disappointed to report that a number of people from the Fedora community didn't welcome the idea of adding a 100% Free kernel to Fedora, that removes the non-Free bits from the kernel along with the Free bits that depend on them, insisting instead that I spend my time in an uphill battle in upstream kernel (that others have already failed, FWIW), making it easier for people to surrender their freedom and feed the forces that want to keep people controlled, divided and helpless.

Evidently I don't feel like working towards this goal, so don't expect patches from me that move non-Free firmware out of the kernel in such a way that it can be loaded with the firmware loading infrastructure.

I guess this means I won't succeed in enabling people to create 100% Free spins of Fedora. This saddens me, for then I'll remain unable to distribute distros named Fedora to my friends, because I refuse to condone or take part in the distribution of non-Free Software, and you can't call it Fedora if you replace the kernel.

That's unfortunate, to say the least.

Anyhow, you can find details about this project at
http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/snapshots/linux-libre/README

I'd also like to thank the free radicals from gNewSense, and then BLAG and dyne:bolic, for taking the lead in creating 100% Free kernels for 100% Free distros. I hope my contributions in this project make their lives easier, and encourage more distros to follow the lead.

So blong...

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

2008-02-07-give-a-man-a-fish.en

Thu Feb 7 06:09:04 2008

So, you need software to solve a specific problem you have, you've looked around in the marketplace and you know you have the following options:

What do you do?


I assume you're familiar with that saying:

Give a man a fish, you have fed him for today.

Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.


The mechanics actually go a bit further:

Give a man a fish, you have fed him for today. Tomorrow, he'll be hungry again, and he'll come back for more.

Teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for a lifetime, and he may very well give you some of the fish he gets, and he may even become a successful professional fisherman.


Sure, learning may take more effort, but it's obvious that it pays off for the future fisher, and quite possibly also for you.


You may be thinking that this is fishy. What does this have to do with finding software to fulfill my needs?, you ask. Everything.

Just be 'a man' ;-)


Get a piece of non-Free Software, you'll have addressed your needs for today. Tomorrow, you'll have new needs, and then you'll have to go back to the vendor.

Get involved in the development of a piece of Free Software, and you'll be able to take care of yourself forever. And you can contribute to the community while at that, and even make a business out of it.


Where do you wanna fish today?

Just don't tell me you have bigger fish to fry!

So long and thanks for all the... Bah!, that's enough! Are you a man or a... dolphin?

Oh, and happy GNU year of the rat!

So blong...

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

2008-01-17-olpc-made-a-big-mistake.en

Thu Jan 17 23:39:30 2008

I was talking to an acquaintance about GNU/Linux on embedded devices the other day, and it occurred to me that OLPC could have been far better understood if it hadn't been framed as a laptop.

Yeah, I know it is a laptop, but it also isn't. I'd rather think of it as a learning assistant, rather than as a laptop.

When you tell people it's a laptop, they immediately start comparing its capabilities with those of a regular notebook. The madness of increasing processor performance, memory and disk capacity, regardless of actual users' needs, comes to mind. Also, the laptop-like "requirements" for running some version of Windows, Java and Flash, all that nonsense.

Now, few people have any such concerns when they think about digital cameras, DVD players, TV sets, cell phones, and, to a lesser extent, even PDAs. No matter how much the processor embedded in them is a general-purpose processor (sometimes even an x86), or the operating system it runs is a general-purpose operating system, framing such disguised computers as something else adjusts the perception and gets people to measure the devices on their own merits, for the purposes they were designed, rather than in comparison with the features of a regular personal computer.

Few people worry about what processor runs their cell phones, digital cameras, media recorders/players or wireless routers, or how fast it runs, or how much memory they have. They judge whether the device performs well enough the functions it was designed for. Why couldn't it have been this way with a learning device such as OLPC's X0?

Of course, it is a bit harder for people to forget that something that has a largish screen, an alphanumeric keyboard and a touchpad, and that can browse the web wirelessly and run word processors and games is a general purpose computer. The form factor that resembles a laptop, even if with smaller dimensions, is too much of a giveaway.

A cell-phone, with its smaller screen and numeric keyboard, is much easier to perceive as "not a computer", even though it is a portable and personal computer that may even be able to run the same applications. Even an Internet tablet with an attached alphanumeric keyboard isn't always perceived as a regular computer, so it's rarely compared with one, feature-wise. They are something else, different classes of devices; people don't look at them as limited notebooks that are missing such and such essential features, even though they are lighter, smaller, more power-efficient and sometimes even more capable than full-featured portable computers from some 15 years ago.

Now, picture of a communication device that is relatively small, so you can carry it with you pretty much wherever you want. You can communicate with others and surf on the Internet anywhere, at any time. Its battery lasts long enough for you to leave it always on. As expected, it has a microphone, a speaker, and even a camera. Its small-screen user interface is very much unlike what you're used to on your PC, but that's not a big deal: you can open your files, browse the web, read and communicate, and even play games, and you're quite happy about it.

So far, the description fits perfectly that of a modern cell phone, no? If I add that the microprocessor is not as powerful as the latest multi-core 64-bit x86 processors, that it doesn't have hundreds and hundreds of megabytes of memory, and that it doesn't even have a hard disk, it will sound even more like a cell phone, and people will still be quite happy with it.

Oddly, the regular keyboard, the large screen, and the ability to add SD and USB storage, rather than making the learning device designed by OLPC even more compelling, shifts the focus away from its real purpose, and people end up focusing on how much of a regular laptop it is not.

I'm sure the Wintel monopolies have had a big role in disparaging of the learning device as limited personal computers. But, really, it was OLPC that first framed the debate in these terms, by naming the project One Laptop Per Child, and choosing laptop.org as the Internet domain name.

Unfortunately, had it been One Learning Device Per Child, it would have made too much room for mocking and criticism: the OLD PC acronym would have been too hard to miss, although the current one might very well pass for OL'PC. One Portable Communicator Per Child could be misread as One Portable Computer Per Child, so it wouldn't work either. One Learning Assistant Per Child would be slightly better, especially in India, where talipot palm leaves (AKA ola) have been used as writing paper, but OLAPC still leaves room for people to think of them as OLA personal computers.

I couldn't think of suitable existing terms that make for a nice acronym, unfortunately. But when I put together the thoughts that it's a learning device, and that some X0 prototype was the strongest source of light available in some homes in Africa, the name that springs to mind is learntern: One Learntern Per Child. OLPC. Works for me. At least in English.

I have no doubt these are impossible to translate literally to other languages, but, given some creativity, it must be possible to come up with something that conveys at least some of the ideas of learning, communicating, shedding light, and being constantly available.

For example, in Portuguese/Spanish, it could be Aprêndice/Apréndice, that combines aprender (to learn) and apêndice/apéndice (appendage), that also sounds like a bit like aprende-se/aprendese com/con ele/él (one learns with it).

One might be tempted to add lâmpada (Portuguese for lightbulb) or lámpara (Spanish for lamp) to the mix, say Lamprêndice/Lampréndice, but then the key term, learning, sort of gets lost in the noise. Lamprendiz, that brings aprendiz (apprentice) into the picture, might work better, but then it doesn't sound so much like an object's name, but rather as a person's role.

Hey, I didn't say it was easy!

Another possibility for Iberian languages is sáber, that moves the stress in saber (the noun knowledge, or the verb to know) to the first syllable, such that it sounds a bit like cyber, and also like sabre (saber, as in Star Wars' light saber ;-). Um/Un Sáber Por Aluno/Alumno.

Cypiens, that rhymes with the Latin sapiens (wise), but that borrows the 'cy' from 'cyber', might also be workable. Commu cypiens (highlighting the communication goal), or Lumi cypiens (focusing on the enlightenment goal), would bring Homo sapiens to mind, which might be nice. That said, the connection with cyber might bring to mind the very notion of general-purpose computers that I'm arguing it should avoid.

In this sense, learntern, aprêndice and apréndice are far better. I don't think I have a perfect name, but I hope I made the point: OLPC needs to find a way to get people to stop comparing the X0 and its successors with regular laptop computers, and instead frame them as cleverly-designed learning assistants, such that they are evaluated on their merits as such, rather than posed as a competitor to the dumbed-down infantilized inexpensive laptops that have tried to immitate it.

So blong...

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

2007-12-24 Dear Santa

Mon Dec 24 04:34:25 2007

(Translated to English from the original letter in Portuguese)

To: joaquim.figueiredo@receita.fazenda.gov.br, deivi.kuhn@serpro.gov.br
Cc: softwares-impostos@fsfla.org, psl-brasil@listas.softwarelivre.org
Subject: Request for source code for IRPF2008v1.0_Teste
From: Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva@fsfla.org>
Organization: FSF Latin America

I hereby request Receita Federal and SERPRO to provide me with access to the source code, owned by the Union, developed by the latter on behalf of the former, corresponding to the classes in the test version of IRPF2008, in directories "irpf" and "serpro" packaged in the file irpf.jar.

The reasons for this request include, in the spirit of collaborative development that moves Free Software, that of contributing to the behavior and security validation of the software, as well as that of simplifying the development of Free Software with similar purpose.

Ideally, I'd like to be able to directly use the public files, created by SERPRO, for this latter purpose. Since the Union is the copyright holder over these public files, and considering the limited usefulness of the code at hand, I see good reasons to publish the aforementioned code under a Free Software license. On the other hand, it seems to me that the limitations of purpose mentioned in the download page contradict the license of some of the third-party components used in this program.

I remind you that the allegations of supposed security reasons to not divulge the source code are voided by the possibility of decompilation of the Java code, which I've already proved with IRPF2007-Livre.

In fact, I've already started the decompilation process of the test version for 2008, and the big similarity with the 2007 version enables a mapping of equivalences and subsequent recovery of almost all the information that was discarde or removed during the process of artificial obfuscation of the object code.

If I, far from being an expert in reverse engineering, am finding little difficulty in doing this, even in the obfuscated version, imagine what someone, with knowledge on the subject and interest in reaping illegitimate advantages or causing harm, would do if the emprisionment of the code sought to hide, in such an ineffective way, information that would enable such benefits or harm?

As for legitimate interests, in the face of the current situation, unfortunately even after I complete the decompilation and publish the result, I still won't have achieved the goal, worth repeating, that any taxpayer be able to comply with his or her tax obligations without giving up digital freedom. The explicit delimitation of purpose for the software in question, although incompatible with other utilized licenses, makes the mere recovery of the source code insufficient to render the mentioned Software Free, like it should be.

To achieve this goal, publication of source code is needed under terms that permit its unrestricted use, its study, modification, distribution and publication, as well as that of versions based on it. It would be best if Receita Federal itself took the initiative of Freeing the code developed for it.

However, if there's opposition to the conveyance of the code copyrighted by the Union under a Free Software license, I, in order to comply simultaneously with my legal obligations and my ethical and moral commitment to not use non-Free Software, will find myself obligated to work in order for there to be Free Software to comply with my legal obligations, even if to this end I end up having to duplicate work that my taxes have already paid for.

It is worth mentioning that the conveyance of the requested information, to any Brazilian citizen or resident who requests it, is required by law, as I understand this is constitutional matter, and that effective security reasons indicate that the validation of tax declarations must be performed by the software that receives them, and not only by that which prepares them on an unknown environment, that may be not only unreliable, as in computers fail, but also potentially hostile, as in under potentially-adversary control.

This request is supported by the constitutional principle of publicness, imposed on the public administration in the 1988 Federal Constitution, in its Article 37, and in the right to receive from public offices information of personal or collective interest, established in Article 5.XXXIII, without room for objection to the conveyance based on the exceptions regulated by law 11.111, dated May 5, 2005, for this is a program that merely facilitates the filling in of income tax declarations, and a test version thereof while at that.

Furthermore, I point out that any contractual restrictions between Receita Federal and SERPRO that might prevent any of the parties from complying with their constitutional obligations, towards myself or other citizens, are void of effect, just like any contractual provision conflicting with current law.

Should you find that any more-formal procedure would be necessary to enable the fulfilment of this request, I'm ready to get it started, and I'd appreciate your suggestions as to what procedure would be most adequate to make it easier for you to seek means to comply with the law and respect citizens in their rights hereby described.

Reassured of being able to count on your cooperation,

At your service,

–
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}

Discussion Loading... Vote up Vote down

Loading... Vote up Vote down

Last update: 2008-05-27 (Rev 3622)

svnwiki $Rev: 12966 $