John Deere has turned itself into a poster-child for the DMCA
boingboing.net
boingboing.net
Cisco has been doing this for years. They're worse than Deere; if you buy a used Cisco router, you don't have the right to run the software. You have to go through the "Cisco Hardware Inspection and Software Relicensing Program" to get a new license.[1]
[1] http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/hw-sw-relicensing-prog...
Actually, on most indicators most European countries lead US. The ones that are significantly lower are preferences towards entrepreneurship (most actually do not want that career option, and go for stable boring jobs), and the actual amounts of start-up companies. But still, the economic output of the EU per capita is higher than that of the US (has been for several years already), so who cares.
Here's something to read on in case you are really interested: Global Enterpreunership Monitor 2016-2017 global report (http://www.gemconsortium.org/report)
This is tinted from my German point of view, but most of these programs have European equivalents or are available to large parts of the European population regardless of whether they live in Germany or not.
Not all OSS is created equal, though. It's not by switching any end-user commercial product to GPL that we'll make an impact. It's more important for application servers, routers, OS, drivers, DBs, and in general libs that can be reused by someone else. If Snapchat were under APL Affero, would we care? What's in it for me if I switch my app to OSS?
I'm giving 1% revenue to OSS. But I have a huge feeling that it's far from enough – Any commercial infra (DB+OS+AppServer) would have cost me 60% of my income. The masterpiece of OSS that really advanced humanity is principally Linux – It seems it's the main one that's worth funding, isn't it?
WebKit (for browsers)
Wikipedia (for knowledge)
Wordpress (powers 20% of web)
Git, Mercurial
Apache, NGinX PHP, Node.js and all the languages
All the Web Frameworks
lame, ffmpeg, tons of other stuff as well
It's really hard to accept programs like Cisco's licensing for the hardware when the software that makes it run is just built right on top of open software. Yes, it's been modified to work better and I'm not saying they don't have a right to use it and resell it after modification, but it feels very weird to know that it was built with free and open software.
The fact that so much of modern tech seems to be just rebranding already open source programs strikes me as a bit silly. The innovation at play seems to be the marketing rather than the actual technology being sold.
^Take facade in its denotation here, not connotations.
If you arrange to give people the same money you would have paid for the closed sourced solution maybe they will let you keep your modifications to yourself and sell the resulting product.
For example just running AGPL software anywhere on Google's servers would open them up to having to open source the entire of Google search. That's why Google has banned the AGPL: https://opensource.google.com/docs/using/agpl-policy/
This is misinformed fear mongering (or maybe FUD?). The AGPL only requires that you offer the source code to the "Corresponding Source"[1] of the AGPL licensed program, if you modified[2] it, to anyone using the program over a network. Merely using an unmodified AGPL licensed program doesn't require anything. Just like other GPL-family licenses, the AGPL is not an "EULA" and doesn't apply to simply using software.
The only way Google's search software could be affected is if AGPL licensed code was added, which is why they have (with good reason) a policy to not do that. Similar risks would apply to including proprietary code, too.
The entire definition of "corresponding source" in the AGPLv3 is identical to the language from the equivalent section of the GPLv3 (and it also includes the same "based on" language and section on aggregates) which is intended to apply to dynamically linked libraries, and it has been widely interpreted that way. If the software would be a single work as defined by the GPLv3 when distributed on a physical CD then it would be covered by the AGPLv3 when accessed over a network.
> the AGPL is not an "EULA" and doesn't apply to simply using software.
All GPL family licences are effectively EULAs because it's the GPL licence that grants the user permission to run the software, without that permission the user would be violating copyright by copying the program into RAM to execute it
>The only way Google's search software could be affected is if AGPL licensed code was added, which is why they have (with good reason) a policy to not do that.
The Google policy prohibits use or even installation. From the link:
>Do not attempt to check AGPL-licensed code into google3 or use it in a Google product in any way.
>Do not install AGPL-licensed programs on your workstation, Google-issued laptop, or Google-issued phone
As far as I know Google uses a single repository for nearly everything, which is why they are so keen to avoid AGPL code coming anywhere near it. Using AGPL code at Google necessitates "adding" it to the single huge google repo.
Google developped an excellent library that they open sourced called Google OR Tools [1]. It not only provides access to Google's in house linear programming optimiser, but also acts as a wrapper around other solvers, some free, some commercial, so that you just change a parameter to try another solver.
However because of conflicting licenses or licenses restrictions, google cannot distribute binaries that include certain FOSS solvers, like GLPK. So to be able to use GLPK you need to recompile the whole project yourself. If you go on the Google OR tool forum, you will see that it's not a simple CTR+SHIFT+B, everyone is struggling, and I wasted a lot of time trying to do this.
That's what I mean by strings attached.
If you want to know why they support a license that violates freedom zero you will have to ask them but to me it suggests that the foundation of Free Software is fundamentally flawed in a world of networked software: i.e. the four freedoms are not compatible. My right to exercise freedoms 1, 2, and 3 limits your freedom to exercise freedom zero. Currently software authors have to pick one side of that argument either by using AGPL (restricts freedom 0) or GPL (doesn't protect freedoms 1, 2, or 3).
Please stop spreading FUD about Free Software. The AGPL does not restrict usage. See Section 13 - the requirement to offer to network users only applies if you also make a derivative work by modifying the software, and even then it only requires you to offer the corresponding source to the work that was modified with the new modifications.
This is from the legal analysis by Eben Moglen & Mishi Choudhary for the Software Freedom Law Center[1]
>Whether to extend the copyleft concept to the delivery of services by free software over a network is a complex issue long discussed in the free software community. Freedom zero requires that any user be allowed to run any program for any purpose, which of course includes the provision of computing services to others. Freedom two requires respect for the right of private modification. Their combination requires that anyone be able to run privately-modified copies of GPL’d programs for the purpose of providing computing services to others.
That's very clear that freedom zero and freedom two necessitates allowing people to run modified GPL programs on servers without making the code available to users. The AGPL is explicitly designed to prevent that, so it's inevitably in conflict.
>even then it only requires you to offer the corresponding source to the work that was modified with the new modifications.
As I demonstrated in my other comment the language in the AGPLv3 is identical to the GPLv3 when it comes to the issues of derivative works/combined works/aggregate works. Everybody accepts that the GPLv3 requires software linking to a GPLv3 library to be made available under the terms of the GPLv3. The same applies to the AGPLv3, so in many cases it will mean people will also have to release their own code that links to the AGPLv3 library they are running on their server, if they make modifications to the AGPLv3 code.
[1] https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/SFLC-Guide_to...
In the real world people typically want to use code as part of their own service/application which contains domain specific logic they wrote themselves.
>You can perfectly well run an AGPL webserver and not be forced to put your operating system under AGPL.
Because the GPLv3 and AGPLv3 (the licences are identical in this regard) have explicit sections excluding operating systems and system libraries from the terms of the licence.
The rest of the content is from the Wired article quoted, which is a couple of years old but should probably be the link here:
https//www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/
Bravo, Tesla.
In Europe it's not uncommon for BMW, Mercedes and other luxury cars to find their way to Romania and other eastern European country after they been in an accident. These cars aren't repaired in western Europe because they've been damage so badly that they would be unsafe, even after repairs. It was even the reason for massive thefts of airbags in northern Europe. The airbags would be sold in Romania to the people who where repairing the damaged cars.
My point is that the reactivation by an authorised garage helps ensure that dangerous cars are driving around in less regulated / poorer countries.
Now, I'm not saying that Teslas are used for off roading, but I suppose it's a huge worry that in 10 years time if you have even a minor accident that can be easily repaired, Tesla will just say "sorry, we can't reactivate the computer on that model, it's out of support since 2025" and the only thing you can do is buy a new model. You wouldn't have that problem with a 20 year old Mercedes, would you?
They're just as bad as John Deere at this.
And yes, if your (four or six) airbags are deployed in a car crash often is cheaper to throw it and buy another, than to repair the old car. Probably by design.
Still quietly optimistic about Tesla's effect, so I hope they don't turn out as self-serving as the rest.
Tesla and Elon Musk has no interest in preventing people from driving their cars. They have an interest in making sure those cars are safe to drive, something Toyota, VW, GM, Ford, and Chrysler have historically had issues with (Hyundai/Kia, Nissan, and Honda really haven't had issues here, in the interest of fairness).
Toyota licensing Tesla tech is a bit of an outlier, which I had assumed at the time was Toyota trying to improve vehicle reliability and safety, but the technology seems to have not gone further than that one series of RAV4s.
What is being debated is whether those IPRs (which can only be licensed or sold outright) can be extended to cover the end user's use of the product that contains the IP.
The DMCA doesn't say you can't do what you like to the product, it says you can't circumvent "locks" on the IP that enforce the licensor's IPR. That's a very contentious position and is inherently anti-competitive and anti-innovation.
IPRs are provided by the State for specific purposes. Extending those rights beyond those purposes should be ruled either unconstitutional or against the best interests of society.
(To be clear: John Deere and the rest are in the wrong, I'm just nitpicking your comment)
"IP" is disinformation - "copyright" is not "property", it's a temporary monopoly granted to the creator of a work.
Technically, you are right, but its not about the right to disassemble the drivers for your JD tractor, its really about the right to effectiveley own that machine. If you are not allowed to repair your own machine, you don't have ownership on it.
If what I hear about the US south and their propensity for guns is true, they must be pissing off a lot of people I personally wouldn't mess with.
Just waiting for a farmer to lose his rag when he can't fix a simple thing on a million dollar chunk of hardware.
The logical solution is to avoid inventing imaginary rights to brand identity. When you sell something you ought to give up the right to control how its used. If you want to rent or lease equipment you have to convince your customers to buy into that model.
No, that's an imaginary problem invented to rationalize this bullshit.
I don't think there actually exist people so ignorant to not realize that buying used hardware comes with caveats and that you usually get what you paid for.
A company I worked for decided to settle after someone broke in, stuck something in the safety switch and got injured while illegaly operating a machine we had made.
The reasons were simple:
1. There were no sticker saying this was bad. (But as mentioned we had other safety measures that were deliberately overridden.)
2. While we had a fair chance of winning the costs and risks were simply not worth it.
Lessons learned: if something goes to the US, make sure the stickers are in place.
The reasons were simple:
1. There were no sticker saying this was bad.
And this shows that if Deere cared about liability and not about ripping customers off every time they need to repair something, they would use stickers instead of DRM.
And you can laugh at safety stickers, but IMO they are a good thing. They mean that your responsibility is limited to providing basic safety interlocks sufficient for the intended use and informing what is and what isn't intended use. Everything else is user's problem, as it should be. I certainly prefer this over wasting manufacturers' time on elaborate idiot-proofing and then later wasting hackers' time on breaking it.
If JD had a reasonable port to the flash, it would be easy to read it out and see if your phone (or whatever) thought it had the correct image.
The only alternative is complete lockout and walled garden, thankfully Google didn't go that route in this case.
Reflashing the boot firmware was not really an option back when I checked.
Global warming requires a lot of invention and cooperation together or we will be doomed.
A forsee farming tractors going the same route as routers. First they where propietary hardware routers running closed operating ststems. Then came propietary routing hardware mostly broadcom based running open software Linux for software defined networks. Then came facebook open hardware for seitches and open software. The same will probably happen with tractors. Crowd funded community constructed open hardware and software.
Actually, I believe you're technically wrong - the Queen is essentially the CEO of The Crown, which is a company and can therefore own those types of property.
There are definitely open source alternatives to many many things, but how often are they the ones capturing most of the market?
John Deere would have nothing to say about that. They would not likely want to have a lot of older machines showing up on their lots every time a farmer passes. Their focus is on keeping the buyer in the machine upgrade cycle.
John Deere in this case is trying to do what auto-makers do with their cars in selling the car and then trying to lock the buyer into long term service and maintenance at a company dealership where their OEM parts are sold at a premium and installed by trained techs who also earn a premium for the dealership service department.
There are a lot fewer tractors sold than cars and there is increasing competition from foreign rivals so Deere could be seeing part of their traditional market evaporate as smaller farm operations shift from their products to cheaper and easier to maintain foreign equipment.
There is currently a thriving market for used farm equipment, especially equipment old enough to be pre-sensor, pre-electronics. A lot of this is bought up here and shipped overseas to small farms where people understand how to maintain them through prior exposure to the older tech.
I read an article not long ago somewhere that described how older Massey Ferguson tractors are especially in high demand since they had a global distribution system before being bought by AGCO.
There is a lot of technical and service information available for old equipment. Parts are available from salvage yards and NOS (new old stock) suppliers as well as high quality reproduction parts from other sources.
John Deere risks driving their traditional customers away if they stick with the "you never own it" model. There are competitors who are advertising use of commonly available parts and sensors or tractors that don't use sensors at all making them simple for a reasonably skilled mechanic to maintain. Believe me that if you are a farmer maintaining a tractor is one of the normal parts of your life. You likely have all the tools, a large well-equipped shop, and plenty of able assistants if you need them.
I digressed a bit there. Sorry.
1) have their machine run (to do some actual work)
2) be able to repair quickly their machines when they break(and at a reasonable price)
This disgusts me, frankly.
This isn't like coming up with a better lightbulb that cost $2 to manufacture and will sell millions. And while the large farms may cycle through their equipment in 5 years, a small farmer may keep his in operation for 20+ years, so there's not a whole lot of equipment turnover for an upstart to break into.
For example, can you bioengineer bugs that keep plants safe, but eat weeds or pests? This is part of the tractor's job: chemical spray. Can you create a swarm of planters to efficiently distribute the seed? Can you do either of these or more with an open platform? Can you survive the onslaught of legal attack from the megaliths you're trying to topple?
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
Flagging off otherwise interesting articles is seriously annoying IMO.
I'd say commenting or upvote if there is already a comment (and maybe emailing if necessary) is the solution.
Personally I think it's stupid. Release the code under GPL and you'll save yourself a PR nightmare and future proof the company. Manufacturing and design of farm equipment is what keeps competition out, not software.
How can you be sure? I have never used a "smart tractor", so I have no idea.
Sure you can do all the work with a 1960s tractor, the improvement is incremental compared to using a donkey, but apparently there is such a thing as an improvement coming from software.