~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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@gnu.org.in
Prof Rahul De' (IIM-B) rahul@iimb.ernet.in
Abhas Abhinav (FSUG-Bangalore) abhas@deeproot.co.in
Venue: IIM-B
Date: 23, 24 August, 2006
Contact numbers:
Abhas Abhinav (FSUG-Bangalore) #080-41124785
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
On 8/2/06, doxa@sancharnet.in doxa@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
-
Arun M -
doxaï¼ sancharnet.in -
Sasi Kumar