Is there anybody who's actually been convinced to switch to the 100% pure and ethical GNU/RMS lifestyle by these articles or is it just preaching to the choir?
At the time, I thought it seemed a little over-the-top.
Yet since then, I have personally lost control of many of the computing devices I use. The phone was the biggest one, and I can't (don't?) avoid phones altogether like RMS. His words were actually accurate.
Now, I do think that some people try to get a message across, and are not heard, so they use stronger words until they get a response. Those messages do become over-the-top.
But I have come to realize that RMS himself carefully chooses his words.
No, you haven't. Or rather, you didn't lose control because of any software license. We lost control because of cryptography and enforced signature verification. Just because software is licensed as open source doesn't mean it allows for third-party firmware modification.
Maybe it's because I came up through the RE scene, but the false association between open source and ownership or security has always stood out to me. Many of the modding and hacking communities that orbit proprietary software are/were more vibrant than anything that exists in the totally open source space.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's the law that's a barrier, not cryptography. If you break the DRM on a game you can still face legal consequences, even if the company that licenses it doesn't support it anymore.
Exactly, you just named a subset of all the things you could do to a machine, partitioned by copyright protection. I'd agree with your general point in the context of power users, but it's worth noting that the average Joe will try to faithfully follow company policy as well as the law.
To run afoul of the DMCA a modder needs to (1) strip a binary of its copyright protection (2) distribute the unpacked executable or the unpacker tool (3) likely facilitate mass third-party piracy (more damages = more lawsuit potential). It’s principally warez and hacking groups that meet these criteria, and they probably ought to be sued.
I’ll add a point in your favor and say that for non-games DRM is often a big problem when reversing or patching code.
Yes, the term for this is "tivoization." It is a large part of why the GPLv3 exists.
> Just because software is licensed as open source doesn't mean it allows for third-party firmware modification.
Yep, "open source" and many copyleft licenses are insufficient for this job.
> “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
> If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
(https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GiveUpKeys clarifies that this applies to cryptographic keys.)
lol. Look, in practical terms - as well as by definition - proprietary software is owned by someone else.
It makes them feel righteous.
but they live in their own world
This is moronic pseudo-religious doublespeak. They're saying it's acceptable to charge a fee for the one part of software creation that's effectively cost-free.
Even most of the vendors of free software today (e.g. Confluent) are using some kind of SaaS or open core model.
Unlike physical objects, where the sale accounts for the cost of production of material etc, what value does someone trying to sell a GPLv3 software add? I argue that the added value is zero, and hence, the price must be zero as well.