24 Jul
2006
24 Jul
'06
2:48 a.m.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bangalore to Host the Fourth International Conference
on GPLv3
India will host the Fourth International GPLv3
Conference in Bangalore,
this August 23-24, 2006. A part of the world-wide
drive to create awareness
about the upcoming version three of the GNU General
Public License (GPLv3),
the two-day conference is expected to draw delegates
from across the
communities - legal, bureaucrat and academia. While
the first day will see
Richard M Stallman and Eben Moglen, the original
architects of the GPLv3
license, communicating latest updates on the GPLv3
final draft, the second
day holds panel discussions on localisation, awareness
and adoption of
GPLv3 and threat of Digital Restrictions Management
(DRM).
The event to be held at the Indian Institute of
Management - Bangalore
is a sequence to the Third International GPLv3
Conference that took place
in Barcelona, Spain. Similar events have already been
held in the USA and
Brazil. The international GPLv3 conferences are part
of a year-long public
consultation process to update the GNU General Public
License (GPL).
The version 3 of the GPL, essentially, takes into
account changes in terms
of legal and technical environment, in which software
licenses operate, and
the need to increase protection against new threats
such as software
patents and Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). The
worldwide awareness
drive for GPLv3, is to ensure that, all users of
software distributed under
its terms, have the freedom to examine, share, and
modify that software.
For registration kindly visit GPLv3 conference website
http://gplv3.gnu.org.in
For Details, kindly contact:
Arun M (FSF-I) arun(a)gnu.org.in
Prof Rahul De' (IIM-B) rahul(a)iimb.ernet.in
Abhas Abhinav (FSUG-Bangalore) abhas(a)deeproot.co.in
Venue: IIM-B
Date: 23, 24 August, 2006
Contact numbers:
Abhas Abhinav (FSUG-Bangalore) #080-41124785
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 Aug
2 Aug
8:58 a.m.
New subject: Flame
Linus quotes "Say I'm a hardware manufacturer. I decide I love some particular
piece of open-source software, but when I sell my hardware, I want to make sure
it runs only one particular version of that software, because that's what I've
validated. So I make my hardware check the cryptographic signature of the
binary before I run it ... The GPLv3 doesn't seem to allow that, and in fact,
most of the GPLv3 changes seem to be explicitly designed exactly to not allow
the above kind of use, which I don't think it has any business doing."
This is surely not convincing. Here it seems Linus himself wants to play the
role of a supergod, by restricting access. In Free Software paradigm, the point
is to leave the whole control of the project threadbare to the community. The
'shark-laser' syndrome is what the proprietary developers and (rogue)
governments put forward when they want to be hide away from being transparent.
Is this the burning issue or are there more to it ?
CK Raju
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using NWebmail, BSNL's Webmail Program
9:23 a.m.
New subject: Flame
On 8/2/06, doxa(a)sancharnet.in <doxa(a)sancharnet.in> wrote:
Linus quotes "Say I'm a hardware
manufacturer. I decide I love some particular
piece of open-source software, but when I sell my hardware, I want to make sure
it runs only one particular version of that software, because that's what I've
validated. So I make my hardware check the cryptographic signature of the
binary before I run it ... The GPLv3 doesn't seem to allow that, and in fact,
most of the GPLv3 changes seem to be explicitly designed exactly to not allow
the above kind of use, which I don't think it has any business doing."
It is the hardware manufacturer who has absolutely no business
controlling what version of what software the buyer wants to run on
the machine. This reminds me of the case when one of my colleagues
bought an HP machine and wanted to install GNU/Linux in it. It came
with M$ Windows perloaded, which he wanted to keep. But the hard disk
had a single partition and he wanted it partitioned. The supplier told
him that he is not allowed to partition it, and if he partitioned it
the warranty would become invalid. So my colleague told him that he is
rejecting the computer if he is not allowed to partition the hard
disk. This, of course, the supplied did not expect. So he made a show
of consulting some bosses at HP and finally partitioned it and we
installed GNU/Linux in one of the partitions. I guess people
will/should simply reject a product that comes with such stupid and
restrictive conditions. The freedom should be for the user, and not
for the manufacturer to control the user.
Best
--
V. Sasi Kumar
Free Software Foundation of India
6079
days inactive
6088
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Arun M -
doxaï¼ sancharnet.in -
Sasi Kumar