Difference between revisions of "Archive:Discussion 2: Code, Freedom, and Control"

From FreeCulture.org
Jump to: navigation, search
(+pb)
(...)
Line 29: Line 29:
 
Therefore if after releasing GPLv3 someone came up with another way to limit free software, we would come out with GPLv4 or v3.1.
 
Therefore if after releasing GPLv3 someone came up with another way to limit free software, we would come out with GPLv4 or v3.1.
  
 +
There was a lot of anger about DRM; if we could turn that into a more consumer perspective on DRM, it would help us ensure GPLv3 was created not only for the development community.  There seemed to be a suggestion that we created gpl to empower development, to give them the keys to do with software what they wish but imprison users; and the FSF wants to give developers and businesses but also all computer users freedom; and the only way to do that was to guarantee it at that level.
 +
 +
The campaign was created with these concepts, as John mentioned -- activism around software, transferring it to a more general population.  One of the key questions we were asking ourselves:  could the more general poplation become social activists?  My backgrond is social activism; I'm not a programmer, I've worked at other nonprofits doing social activist work.  The question was, could technologists get off the couch and actually particpiate? 
 +
 +
We launched an event at a windows dev conference in Seattle in 2006.  We turned up in Hazmat suits... it's important that we do own the Itnernet; you are the internet; technologists tend to be the vocal ones; the issue around DRM ahs quickly beome a key Internet and blog issue. Traffic surrounding these topics is huge.  As we later saw in the year, digg had this revolt around DRM.  From the beginning, we launcehd DBD to have some sort of event every two weeks, to build up momentum for the idea that DRM is anti-consumer. 
 +
 +
We targeted Apple because they were making DRM popular; the iPod and iTunes.  It would seem as though this was the way we were going.
  
 
==Mako Hill, ''Ubuntu/Freedom Defined''==
 
==Mako Hill, ''Ubuntu/Freedom Defined''==

Revision as of 17:00, 26 May 2007

John Sullivan, Free Software Foundation

...My background is more free culture than free sotware, since I used to do a lot of art.

It's not alright to let MS off the hook b/c others might have worked with big media to enable DRM. If MS had said no, who eles would big media have gone to?

Any time we talk aout goin gafter proprietary media, ew also ened to talk about going after MS and Apple, the companies that make tech that enables these restrictions to be used. We think software is the lens through which a lot ofa rt is viewed now. If you are making art that depends on proiprietary software to be appreciated, it is like what RMS used to call the Java trap...

We really rely on volunteer help. If you're doing something along these lines, we'd love to promote that as well.

Q - is there any reason to use Vista?

A - they do try to market DRM as a feature; if you want to have a 'next-generation content experience' you need to run Vista.

Q - what is the novelty in the DRM used in Vista? Maybe ther eare other mac usersw in the audience who don't know that.

A - they do a lot more signing of the driver,s controlling video output; there are more interfaces b/t the software and the hardware. This is why many peopl eneed to upgrade hardware to run Vista; they extend the scheme farther into hardware than it was before. The HD vid technologies also are enabled in Vista with restrictions (down to the hardware level).

Q - is the threat more related to software than hardware?

A - a peripherla designer who wants to make it for vista has to provide facility for intervfacing with vista, which poses a threat to fee software drivers... or they may be disqualified from the vista certification process.


Refs

Peter Brown, Defective By Design

I have some fun images of the campaigns from this past year. Some of you may have seen the DBD stickers.. we launched this in response to what we got from the first release of the GPLv3. Were alwasy trying to find ways to ensure free software stays free. It is designed to prevent proprietization of free software.

Therefore if after releasing GPLv3 someone came up with another way to limit free software, we would come out with GPLv4 or v3.1.

There was a lot of anger about DRM; if we could turn that into a more consumer perspective on DRM, it would help us ensure GPLv3 was created not only for the development community. There seemed to be a suggestion that we created gpl to empower development, to give them the keys to do with software what they wish but imprison users; and the FSF wants to give developers and businesses but also all computer users freedom; and the only way to do that was to guarantee it at that level.

The campaign was created with these concepts, as John mentioned -- activism around software, transferring it to a more general population. One of the key questions we were asking ourselves: could the more general poplation become social activists? My backgrond is social activism; I'm not a programmer, I've worked at other nonprofits doing social activist work. The question was, could technologists get off the couch and actually particpiate?

We launched an event at a windows dev conference in Seattle in 2006. We turned up in Hazmat suits... it's important that we do own the Itnernet; you are the internet; technologists tend to be the vocal ones; the issue around DRM ahs quickly beome a key Internet and blog issue. Traffic surrounding these topics is huge. As we later saw in the year, digg had this revolt around DRM. From the beginning, we launcehd DBD to have some sort of event every two weeks, to build up momentum for the idea that DRM is anti-consumer.

We targeted Apple because they were making DRM popular; the iPod and iTunes. It would seem as though this was the way we were going.

Mako Hill, Ubuntu/Freedom Defined