Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- PJ: "we are cheated out of the money we paid Tivo"

[Alexander Terekhov]

-----
DRM "Misunderstood"
Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 28 2006 @ 11:26 PM EDT
In your explaining it, you yourself say it's silly.

It would be silly if they used nonGPL code. Because they are using GPL
code to do it, it's a bit worse than silly. And we are saying: Be silly
with proprietary code, if you wish, but leave the GPL out of such
tricks.

Because the final result for the end user is their Tivo doesn't work,
and for all practical purposes in the real world with normal people it
means that the promise of the GPL is not fulfilled. We can't have a Tivo
and the freedoms of the GPL simultaneously, because most of us don't
know how to take the code and run it somewhere else.

In short, our bottom line is we are cheated out of what we expected the
GPL to provide and/or we are cheated out of the money we paid Tivo,
because we have a Tivo box we can't use because we exercised rights the
GPL gives us and now this company, making money from that very same
code, has effectually shut down one of the basic freedoms of the GPL.
The first principle of the GPL is equality of rights.

We bought it, but now we can't modify and use it. And it's GPL?

No. Not acceptable. Let them use proprietary code they write themselves
and pay for if they want to pull tricks like that. Because the bottom
line is they've found a loophole in the GPL, which is one reason why
there is a new draft, and that loophole is going to be closed. I don't
think anyone should wink at deliberate steps taken to water down the
GPL.

As I think you have seen here today on Groklaw, a lot of people care
deeply about this issue, and most disagree with you. And that isn't
going to change. So I hope you seriously consider all the comments today
and give more thought to GPLv3, on behalf of the nonprogrammer end users
like myself who love your work and would like to stick with the Linux
kernel.

Forget about that old argument between the two camps. That is so over.
Instead please think more about end users, because we are never
anybody's priority in the corporate world, which is one reason we walked
away from proprietary software. And who are you writing your software
for, if not us? 
-----

PJ, PJ (Pamela and Paul Jones), I have yet to see Linus' contract(s),
but it must be obvious to everyone and his dog (unless both are total
idiots) that Linus is writing (actually mostly merely assembling, as 
of late) software for a cartel of competitors engaging in predatory 
price-fixing conspiracy in violation of Sherman Act 1 (according to 
Wallace): OSDL.

regards,
alexander.