I don't disagree with the authors overall premise, but I disagree that only corporations can own "property". The title is misleading as it refers to intellectual property. Anyone can own intellectual property, but I suppose only corporations have the money to defend it.
>> The title is misleading as it refers to intellectual property.
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.
I'd be infuriated if I bought that kind of machinery ($$$) and it was software killable. It's absurb people are defending this behaviour. The article mention's it's an end run around laws, so they can put whatever nonsense is allowed in a software license.
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.
If I buy a book, I don't own the IP in the book. Even though I can do what I want with the physical item, I certainly cannot (legally) sell copies of it.
(To be clear: John Deere and the rest are in the wrong, I'm just nitpicking your comment)
First I laughed, and then I thought this wasn't such a bad idea - sure you want to absorb the mind numbing true cost of the entire stack, then knock yourself out, be as 'Gollumy' as you like - get caught leveraging OSS for that and you pay the difference - a pipe dream, but a nice one - the real solution is more along - 'Dear John Deere, try not to be a complete dick all the time' but that rarely works
Let corporations think closed system can help their profit until someone come with an alternative open source system and customers flock over. More startup opportunities for smart tractors.
If it works that way, shouldn't we be able to look at an industry and see that happening? I can't think of a good example, though I may not be thinking hard enough.
There are definitely open source alternatives to many many things, but how often are they the ones capturing most of the market?
remember linux? centralization is good for conquering, but decentralized forces hold more permanently once they take hold (which can take a long time).
It needs not to be wholesale open sourced, but dev-friendly, hackable, after market support. Android is a good example. Even some OEMs favor lockdown (looking at you, Samsung), there are dev-friendly OEMs (OnePlus, Google). End users don't need to be tech-savvy, especially farmers, but knowing there is alternative support from community is good enough.
Unless developers of the open system get their life destroyed by patent law suits. Stop believing in the free market fairy tale when there's so many ways available for the corporations to break and stop the basic requirement: competition.
The free market ideal, as I understand it, is something more like physicists saying, "in a perfect vacuum." It is an ideal to be considered, not a destination.
This is not an easy market to disrupt... the barrier to entry for manufacturing a $200,000 tractor or $500,000 combine is high, and the market is not that large.
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.
The rich don't understand barriers to entry? Sure, throw enough money at the barrier and you can climb it, but that's not so much a revolutionary state of mind as it is just having enough money to try something expensive.
Then again, if you come up with a little harvester that autonomously harvests 1/4 acre, fits in a suitcase and costs $100, you just might sell millions. People will want better $500k harvesters like they want Zeppelins with more lift or faster steam ships.
John Deere is a brand name in the US. There are several Asian companies that compete with them. When was the last time you bought a tractor? Mahindra, Kubota, New Holland Ag, Case-Farmall and Massey-Ferguson. Have you looked at the competitive landscape?
The disruption is probably not in the form of traditional hardware. You'll have to attack a different problem that tractors or other heavy farm equipment solve.
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!
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]
You can't lump European countries up like that. There are vast differences. Most offer high levels of entrepreneurial financing, supporting government policies, separate tax systems for entrepreneurs, programs, entrepreneurial education, high ratio of R&D investments turned into profit, and so on.
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)
...apart from the ability to start a limited liability company with as little as 1€ in capital requirement, various tax exemptions and financial aid/sponsorship programs for start-ups and small companies in general?
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.
Honestly, the existence of Linux (and other open source software) is a miracle after seeing all the bullshit around copyright and licensing these days...
Open source also comes with all sort of string attached. Licenses that either force you to share the code or restict it in certain applications, etc. It's not a free world (as in you downloaded it you do whatever you want with it).
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/
Actually here is a practical example of the sort of annoyance resulting from FOSS licenses.
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.
> running AGPL software anywhere on Google's servers ... entire of Google search
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 AGPL only requires that you offer the source code to the "Corresponding Source"[1] of the AGPL licensed program
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.
Sure, but this Free Software of yours is less free than say, FreeBSD, which also gives Cisco the freedom to extract money from 2nd hand sales of their equipment ;)
Is the net gain of a BSD license better than if it didn't exist, considering public companies use it for profit and don't contribute back? Absolutely, but same with LGPL. Actuaĺly I just wanted to argue it.
That's incorrect. The AGPL is considered Free Software by the FSF even though it clearly limits use of the software.
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).
> it suggests that the foundation of Free Software is fundamentally flawed
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.
It's not FUD, it's an awkward reality. The FSF themselves don't deny that there's a contradiction. The right to use modify code privately is one of the four freedoms, so your insistence that the AGPLv3 violates it is just supporting the existence of a fundamental contradiction.
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.
Anything licensed under the AGPL attaches conditions to using the software. Running the software on a server means you are required to open source the other software running on the server.
That's bullshit. Only if you've made a derivative work (e.g. by linking AGPL software into your software) you have to offer the derivative work under AGPL. You can perfectly well run an AGPL webserver and not be forced to put your operating system under AGPL.
Sure, if you run a server that's only running some unmodified AGPLv3 software then you don't have to share the source, although in that situation the user typically has access to the source through other channels anyway (the market for selling private AGPLv3 code is pretty much non existent, so the code is almost certainly from a public project).
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.
Your primary restriction is on taking other peoples work building upon it and selling it without sharing your modifications or money with the people who gave you THEIR work for free.
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.
I always wonder how things would be if even half of the time invested in closed source had instead gone toward open source software. The open source ecosystem is already incredible, and IMO more capable in most cases than the closed source alternatives.
I'm realizing you're right. If we want to change humanity, Linux is quite a good way to start.
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?
Seeing a list like this and realizing just how much for-pay software is built right on top of all these OSS projects makes it seem a bit farcical, especially in light of the discussion being about copy right; the products being contented under the guise of copy right to protect the business' profit are themselves just facades^ on top of open and free software.
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.
It's good to see it's made a difference. Back in the day, open source felt like a bit of an edgy proposition with a lot of ney-sayers. Microsoft very front and center there. Now we can get free IDE's versus the money they were trying to charge for Visual Studio or MSDN. And they wonder why developers dislike them.
There are still huge profit opportunities behind Open Source software; ironically, the same openness that helps small startups to avoid high licensing costs of proprietary software also helped big corporations to reshape their product line, profiting from community work, offering certifications and support which in the end turned in more money. This IMO is why Linux and *BSD are alive and well today virtually killing almost every other proprietary Unix around. It's not Linux health that concerns me but what the Linux Foundation wants to do with it in the future. Call me paranoid but I don't trust them.
this is the correct answer. do not attempt to lobby corporations to change their revenue models; that is insane, and stupid. simply come up with a better solution, and use it. problem solved.
Tesla is not hugely better. If you have an accident, the car's computer shuts down and only an authorised Tesla garage can reactivate it. They have effectively DRMd the entire repair process.
I, too, suspect it is done for legal liability issues, since there is a lot of money riding on just killing Tesla outright and plunging car manufacturing back into the dark ages.
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.
I'm a little torn about that one. It's honestly not a bad idea, but I see how it negatively impacts people ability to repair their own cars.
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.
In fact most of the damaged western cars go to Romanian chop shops and get sold for spares. It's an okay business in Romania since repairing your BMW at a dealer could cost as much as getting an used one.
I can see why they would want to prevent a reactivation of a car that was extremely badly damaged - but then, I don't agree that they should be the ones deciding. I am around people who go off roading a lot and you know why modern vehicles are not a good choice for extreme off roading? Because if you hit a tree and the fender falls off, the computer will tell you that you can't continue driving and shut off the engine. Why is it making that decision for you?
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?
This is not new. A lot of car brands have computers that do more or less the same currently.
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.
"Property" is a big term. This is about IP, not chattles or "real" property. The queen is human and certainly can own those types of property. You will need more than lawyers to tell her otherwise.
"The queen is human and certainly can own those types of property."
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.
Humans, as compared to corporations, have (probably) inbuilt timespans which govern their lifetime. If you 'own' a property after you die, how do you enforce your ownership?
You'll be dead so technically you won't. But, a proper will drawn up by competent legal representatives will preserve your ownership for your descendents and see that your real assets, and a tractor is part of your real property that can be passed without any trouble on to your descendents.
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.
This isn't anything enterprise software companies haven't been doing for decades. John Deere just didn't set expectations. If there's enough demand for an open alternative, that's a business opportunity.
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.
> 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.
A middle solution here is in order. If you buy a John Deere tractor or Cisco router you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it if you remove all of that companies branding from it. Leaving their brand on it confers a promise of a certain level of standardization/reliability compromised by DIY repairs/mods.
Yeah. The painstaking removal of all branding on something you own, just so you can have the right to repair it—because it's of substandard quality in the first place. Sounds fun.
No, it looks like John Deere can sue your ass for doing any modifications to your own tractor,since it bypasses their copyright protections and therefore in their opinion, brakes some laws. If it was as simple as losing warranty no one would care.
The problem with "you void the warranty" is that one person voids the warranty, then sells the equipment to someone else, and that second person gets upset with John Deere when it doesn't work. On the hardware side, we have "warranty void if seal broken"; but there's no easy way for someone buying used farm equipment to know if someone messed with the software.
What's so magical about CBs? With physical access, you can reflash the boot firmware and put unsigned OS images on them without any ugly devmode warning screens.
The only alternative is complete lockout and walled garden, thankfully Google didn't go that route in this case.
IDK, I have an ARM CB and here removing the devmode warning should in principle be just a matter of downloading CrOS's modified uboot, commenting few lines, building it and writing to a SPI flash on the board. At some point I even wanted to do it for fun but the flash chip seems to be hidden somewhere under heatsink and the perspective of messing with this white silicone goo for no practical gain was enough to stop me.
> The problem with "you void the warranty" is that one person voids the warranty, then sells the equipment to someone else, and that second person gets upset with John Deere when it doesn't work.
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.
Based on what I read and hear about us laws and how they are enforced this might very well be a real problem there.
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.
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.
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.
Used equipment has always been a crap shoot that comes with few guarantees and will continue to be so for every industry in existence. The fact that used equipment repair could in theory effect the perception of the john deere brand and tangentially their future sales doesn't imply that they have a legal or moral right to prevent it.
This is why our legal system comes to the sane conclusion that a person who gets "upset with John Deere" for that reason has no legal standing because they bought it used. That's the incentive to buy the warranty.
When someone proposes something ridiculous the logical response isn't to meet them halfway.
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, leaving their brand on it confers that you thought well enough of the company to pay for their product, and nothing more. Consumers have no obligation to protect any company's reputation.
One could discuss the corporation taking away personal responsibility for actions performed for example harming the environment. In case of farming One could view it as the tractor as a piece of hardware with software. One licenses the software but should be able to tinker with it. Most inventors tinker if we as a human race are not allowed to tinker we will not innovate.
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.
Title change, please? Boing Boing and especially Doctorow have a serious hyperbole problem, but even their original title didn't put Doctorow's words in John Deere's mouth. The quote marks are completely false.
Sorry for the late reply, but a moderator changed the title when we saw this earlier. The submitted title was "“Only corporations can own property, humans can only license it” – John Deere", which was egregiously editorialized and the sort of guidelines violation that will get an account penalized here (so please don't do it).
People should start to distinguish between "Intellectual Property" and "Intellectual Property Rights". IP is not "owned" in the same way that tangible property or intangible assets like goodwill. What is "owned" is the rights to exploit the intellectual property. These ownership "rights" are granted by the state (US Constitution or in other countries, statute).
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.
As I commented on another thread, the whole stuff is taken (without any need) to extreme points, that is ideology, what the farmers want is much less than freedom to tinker with their machines, they simply want to:
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)
121 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 183 ms ] threadTechnically, 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.
(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.
There are definitely open source alternatives to many many things, but how often are they the ones capturing most of the market?
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.
This is the way of thinking of the poor. The rich don't think like that.
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!
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.
https://cumulusnetworks.com/products/cumulus-linux/
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/
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.
[1] https://developers.google.com/optimization/
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.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section1
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://fossbytes.com/why-linux-foundations-latest-change-is...
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/controversy-linux-found...
http://techrights.org/2016/09/02/linux-gpl-foes-inside-linux...
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.
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.
They're just as bad as John Deere at this.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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.
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)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14077327