FSF Rattles Tivo Saber At Apple 571
Ohreally_factor takes us back to Friday when both the iPhone and the GPLv3 were released. "This article at Tectonic suggests that Apple's iPhone might run afoul of the GPL. Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF is quoted as saying: 'Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work — it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software.' Might there really be GPLed code in the iPhone? It's well known that OS X built on BSD, which of course uses the BSD license. Webkit is based on KHTML which uses the LGPL."
How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is despicable sensationalism, and not what I'd expect from the FSF.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't submit patches to BSD licensed projects, then whine because my code is used in a way that I don't like. I just don't send any patches in the first place.
It should be noted that the purpose of the GPL isn't world dominance, so the fact that there are people who disagree with the ideas isn't a big loss.
*Users'* freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
As often said, (L)GPL is about protecting the freedom of the *USERS*.
GPL serves to basically grant to USERS freedom to do whatever they want with code, as long as they pass along the same freedom, shall they decide to distribute the code (ie.: they have to transmit the code and the same freedom to the next in line).
Yes, it does restrict professional developpers', manufacturers' and other corporates' freedom. But the GPL was always centered around the user.
The problem that the FSF is trying to bring attention to is that with iPhone those users' freedoms aren't preserved. There is code covered by GPL or LGPL version 2 or previous inside the iPhone. One well known exemple is WebKit/KHTML.
You bought the iPhone, and you own it, it's yours. You got the software running on the iPhone, and you can get the source code for (L)GPLed elements from the web.
BUT you can't do whatever you want to do with it : you can't recompile it and put a new version.
Let's say that KHTML gets some upgrade making it better support newer standarts (strong standart support has always been KHTML/Webkit's selling argument). Or let's say GCC or some other compiler project (be it closed or open source) release a newer compiler version which compiles much faster code, and produce faster software.
The "do-whatever-you-want" freedom to tinker should allow you to rebuild the webkit component in the iPhone (and having either a better or a faster one, according to the previous scenarios).
*BUT* you can't actually upload the newly produced firmware, because the iPhone is DRMed to the bone with Trusted Computing chips, and as such does only run signed and crypted code. The DRM architecture in the iPhone takes away your freedom as an end user to play around with FLOSS inside the firmware.
The only hope for you is to wait and hope that Apple will release a newer firmware with an upgraded WebKit and/or recompiled faster. And hope that Apple won't act like other phone manufacturer ("Sorry this new feature [which btw is only a matter of software support] is only supported in our newer Phone model. Buy it now and enjoy support for newer web-stantard or whatever else").
Once again tivoization occurs.
The speculation of the article ask an open question about what is the long term impact of GPLv3 on this kind of behaviour.
This is an interesting thing to ask oneself. It brings lot of questions about the future :
- Will companies start to think of strategies to let the user tinker the GPL parts (special signing keys for the GPL modules can be ordered from the manufacturer that allow to use modified GPL code in the firmware, while everything else is still restricted) ?
- Will manufacturer start forking project (Apple's forks staying GPLv2, while opensource projects slowly make transition toward GPLv3) ? And which manufacturer will be able to sustain their own fork, or will most of that forking will lead to poorly maintained projects ?
- Or will manufacturer simply stop using GPL code at all and slowly switch to more corporate-friendly instead of user-friendly license like BSD ?
- And will Apple try to bribe the FSF by offer free iPhone, please ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how is this not in breach of section 6 of the LGPL 2.1? [gnu.org]
They probably play on word interpretation (Score:3, Informative)
And I'm sure that, very well paid lawyers from TiVo and Apple will tell you that data DOESN'T include the keys, because, even without them, you CAN produce an executable ELF.
It just happens that your iPhone won't run it. But it's a perfectly standart executable, that follows exactly the ELF specif
Jumping to conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
> play around with FLOSS inside the firmware.
Whoa there! FSF makes an accusation and you swallow it without question? There is no proof that there is any GPL software in the iPhone and until such proof becomes available, how are you any better than RIAA or SCO in assuming otherwise?
> Or will manufacturer simply stop using GPL code at all and slowly switch to more
> corporate-friendly instead of user-friendly license like BSD ?
More likely they will simply continue making and using proprietary code. That's what I would do. Aside from really large projects like the Linux kernel, it is not that much more difficult to rewrite than it is to reuse. That's what salaried programmers are for and lots and lots of unpaid overtime. If they bark, we can always outsource to India.
Re:Jumping to conclusions (Score:4, Informative)
Even if kde developers decide to switch KHTML to LGPL v3, WebKit was forked from a earlier LGPL v2 copy of KHTML, so they would not be affected.
Moreover, one of the biggest contributors (the biggest?) to WebKit is Apple. Somehow it seems unlikely that apple will agree to a change in the license that can prevent it's use in their own cell phone. To be able to relicense it, you will need agreement from all copyright holders including Apple.
This is shameless FUD from FSF.
So FSF, I'll say the same thing that has been said so many times to SCO: Show us the infringing code or STFU.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're allowed to do far more with free software, then you're allowed to do with Apple's software. Redistribute it under the terms you received it for instance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*shrug* noone's ever said it was free of restrictions. Something completely free of restrictions doesn't require a license, as it's in the public domain.
It's far more free than Apple's proprietary offerings however - you are free to use the software however you like.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Informative)
As for why they chose to go that route, you can either put a pro-Apple spin on it and say they thought they could take a strong effort and help it out (by providing substantial code improvements, increased manpower and QA testing, and higher market penetration by leveraging OS X's greater market share than KHTML browsers before it) or you could take an anti-Apple stance and say they were lazy and didn't want to start from scratch. Even if you go that route, the "collateral damage" of Apple sloth has a net benefit on the project and the community, based on KHTML rendering improvements, Acid2 compliance, and growing the platform installed base.
Either way, the LGPL code in the iPhone is just as carefully contained as it is on current Macs (Webkit itself is under a BSD license, with only a few components LGPL'd), and the article is just capitalizing on iPhone hype.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's much simpler than our friend tries to spin the license. It's about freedom of the USER. As a user of GPL2 software, you can do *anything* you want with it and your freedoms are protected.
The minute you turn into a developer and distributor, that's the first time you even have to accept the license! You accept the license because without it you cannot distribute because of copyright. The license then grants the developer & distributor more freed
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're making a jackass argument. NOBODY is forcing you to release your code under the GPL, much less GPL v3. If you really don't care what people do with your code then release it under another open source license like BSD.
You're making a fool of yourself with your inattention to the text. I specifically said I don't have a problem with free software licensing. They have every right to create a license which suits their desires and to stipulate whatever restrictions. That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the FOSS zealotry that refuses to accept that anything outside the GPL as being a valid approach to doing software. That includes proprietary licenses, the BSD license, and Creative Commons. It continue
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
If indeed RMS is a blowhard jackass, what does that say about a company which chooses to use code originally licensed under the GPL which said jackass created, in order to spread software freedom? Why don't companies that wish to sell 'locked-down' or 'dumbed-down' inferior products write code from scratch? Why go to hippies and jackasses?
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, could someone please provide details of what software we are talking about?
Was it GCC? It is my understanding that it is being used as specified in the terms of the GPL... AND NOT INCLUDED ON THE IPHONE.
Was it KHTML? I though LGPL allowed such use.
Are there any GPLv3 code on the device? I thought GPL3 and iPhone was released on the same day, and I doubt any anti-tivo clauses are in any of the software included on the iPhone.
Now the main question: How does RMS being a blowhard jackass affect the price of tea in China? Ahem... I meant to say "How does RMS being a blowhard jackass affect the quality of the software covered under the GPL? Sure some believe he is a jackass. So what? Other than his actions seem to provide cannon fodder to those who are against the GPL, what harm has he done? If he wants to publicly attack users (and supporters) of the GPL and create his own version of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about whether it is safe to issue or use GPL software then who are we to question his reasoning. It's not like as a community we don't want to be viewed as bipolar nutjobs... Of course it doesn't help that there are some who would fall on their sword to worship the ground that RMS walks on.
News-flash: RMS is human. He has flaws like everyone else. Now I ask, "Is he the emperor with no clothes, or the white elephant in the room?" I just can't decide which metaphor to use. I'm not saying he is a bad guy, it's just that as he becomes embolden with his notoriety, he begins to push the envelope on what I and others consider acceptable terms to license software or more importantly an acceptable organization to publicly support.
The problem I have is the FSF is apparently spreading accusations that Apple may have violated the terms of the GPL. It would be different if the FSF was specific and began negotiations, instead of poisoning the well with media reports obviously designed to take advantage of the iPhone release. Maybe someone is more of an attention whore than a jackass, or is it a jackass for being an attention whore?
I would not call the iPhone an inferior product, nor would I call Tivo one either.
Incidentally, Linus (you know the one who started Linux) has no problems with the way Tivo uses Linux. In fact, the anti-tivo clause was the main thing that gave Linus the most heartburn about GPL3. The irony being that it was the popularity of Linux that propels the adoption of the GPL and not RMS or the FSF. RMS knows this and is the motive behind the Gnu/Linux naming issue. Was it a naming issue, or a clever grass roots marketing campaign??? Who cares. The point being that it's the products that drive the adoption of the GPL and if RMS wants to become the cautionary tale of why you should reconsider using some other license than the GPL, who am I to question him?
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is a schoolyard "freer" if a bully is allowed to beat up whomever they wish?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One can argue about where that balance is struck (eg the ongoing GPL v2 - GPL v3 arguments in the Linux kernel world), but claiming there is no balnce is obviou
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Empowering the end user doesn't make the software "free." It does precisely as you claim: it takes power away from one group and transfers it to someone else. If in every political thread on Slashdot, the groupthink mods up comments that government restrictions aren't "freedom" because they artificially change the balance of power (you know, the usual Libertarian railing against Democrats)...then how is this freedom, when it does exactly the same thing?
Either guaranteeing freedom for all through artificial controls IS freedom (price controls, income redistribution, gun control, RMS), in which case political popular opinion here is completely wrong, or artificial mechanisms AREN't freedom, in which case "free" software isn't free at all. You can't have both.
Personally, I have no problem with any of the artificial constraints, anywhere. But I don't walk around claiming that I'm free (as in libre, like the GPL is claimed). I accept that it's a compromise, and not a flawless one. Should be the same with the GPL, but it is worshipped and anyone who doesn't believe in its divine perfection is burned at the stake. That's not right, and it's certainly not free. RMS zealots are completely intolerant of everything else. It's insane.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Sensationalism" is correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Sensationalism" is correct. (Score:4, Informative)
Except that:
1) FSF said nothing like the summary implies.
2) I suspect the FSF chose the 29th so they wouldn't have too much publicity - I mean all the MS/Apple pundits who'd otherwise love to have a bit of a GPL3 bash have had their hand full. (either denouncing the iphone or heralding it as the second cumming)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FSF said nothing like the summary implies
Would it be easier for you if I linked you directly to the release from the FSF? Here. [fsf.org]
Here's the Slashdot summary:
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF is quoted as saying: 'Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software.'
Here's the quote from the FSF news release:
The iPhone is leaving people questioning: Does it contain GPLed software? What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices like the iPhone that are built to keep their owners frustrated?
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Tomorrow, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software."
So basically, you're talking out of your arse.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is spreading the FUD here, the FSF isn't making an accusation: "it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software" isn't an accusation, neither is "What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices like the iPhone?".
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the words "to what extent" imply that there is _some_ extent to begin with. The mere fact that they make these statements imply that they think their words have any significance at all.
My thought is that this is just the zealot RMS who can't stand people using other open licenses than GPL and just wants to start a pissing-match. I'm assuming the BSD supporters won't be impressed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it is. Fortunately.
Context is everything, and unfortunately, TFA doesn't provide a great deal, but most likely Brown was responding to statements like this from Steve Jobs;
The role of the FSF is to promote freedom of software and computing platforms. Systems like the iPhone which are closed to their owners as a matter of policy rather than technology are the antithesis of what the FSF stands for.
The comment from Peter Brown calling the iPhone crippled is accurate in the context of the FSF's mandate, and is an appropriate stance for the FSF to adopt. There's a better article here http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/iphone [fsf.org] that summarises their attitude.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then let them release their own phone and stop slinging mud at people and making accusations with no supporting evidence.
This is a pathetic move from the FSF and it should be condemned by everyone here. I don't recall ever seeing them make an accusation based on such flimsy evidence for a violation as "they use GPL software in other products." If apple wants to release a phone that is proprietary that is well within their rights. If you want to champion open solutions then go out and make one and beat them at their own game. Thats how its supposed to work.
This would be like all the linux coders in the world hanging it up and turning into PR machines simply accusing MS and apple of violating the GPL and hoping the go away rather than trying to produce a platform to provide an alternative.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not a null problem! Why? Because you could become interesting. For example, what if you happened to frequent the same restaraunt as some criminal? Even though you had no association with him, the cellphones records would show the two of you "meeting" regularly, which could land you on a watch list purely by dumb (bad) luck. Or what if you witness a government official doing something he shouldn't, and he wants to shut you up? Well, congratulations: he now has a record of all your movement habits. Or what if your health insurance company decides that going to the Taco Bell drive through twice a week is too often, and raises your rate? What if your psycho ex happens to work at the phone company, and decides to start stalking you?
Here's my point: tracking data could be abused in an unlimited number of ways, even if you're a "normal" person.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thank god the government and businesses are perfectly honest. Law enforcement officials never abuse access to such data for personal use. [copwatch.org] The government never uses data originally collected for innocent purposes then uses it to round up everyone of a particular ethnicity. [schneier.com] Private investigators and stalkers never engage in pretexting and other forms of fraud to get access to phone records and other private
Working against the interests of the owner?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner.
I am in favour of free and open software, but this statement is absolutely assinine.
The idea that a device not "under my (presumably *direct*) control" is therefore necessarily "working against me" is a laughable twist of pseudo-logic. As a statement it's only usefulness is as a means to detect the underlying paranoia (and perhaps a tinge of churlishness), from those that mouth such beliefs. I don't like "Tivoisation" either but it's hardly a serious threat to the free and open source software mov
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You could say the same thing to Apple; if you don't agree with what free software "stands for", then DON'T USE IT IN YOUR PRODUCTS!
Ignorance is not an excuse ... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Apple does publish all the source it is required to:
- With Darwin (the base OS) there is no requirement (it is a BSD license), but they do so: http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ [apple.com]
- With WebKit (a fork of KHTML), and engine used by Safari, they do so: http://webkit.org/ [webkit.org]
and there is also more: http://developer.apple.com/opensource/ [apple.com]
Sure in some ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. And we should never criticize Microsoft, or the RIAA, or network neutrality opponents like AT&T.
It is perfectly fine to criticize anyone for anything you disagree with. It is free speech. You might notice something all the groups you listed have in common, however. Microsoft has multiple monopolies and has been convicted of abusing them. The RIAA is a cartel and has been convicted of price fixing and several other abuses of that cartel. AT&T is a government subsidized company with geographical monopolies in many areas, often enforced by local law and is also a convicted monopoly abuser.
Apple is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That pretty much sums up the maturity level of Free Software zealots.
I wasn't debating the merits of their argument that the iPhone may or may not use GPL code, I was merely stating that just because someone uses somehting that isn't as "open" as Stallman would like doesn't mean they are a dumb slave....Grow up dude, seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is in violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the LGPL2.
I believe that if it were under the LGPL3 it would be in direct violation.
--jeffk++
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can compile my own programs and load 'em on my little Nokia 9300, bring it over to the States, turn it on and, pow, I'm on the same network as your iPhone - imagine the harm I can do (not).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So that's this thread completley Godwinized [wikipedia.org]
By the way, this is slashdot - you're supposed to use a stupid meaningless car analogy, not a stupid meaningless gun control analogy.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Just because there's an article about the FSF & Apple, doesn't mean its endorsed by Apple or the FSF.
The only quote in the article from the FSF is a (rather general) statement about the iPhone being proprietary & DRM laden. Nothing about licensing at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FUD? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they do need to release the "machine-readable source code" of the version of Webkit used on the iPhone, as per LGPL 2.1 [gnu.org] Section 4.
Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing? (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as the iPhone software is concerned this is all a storm in a teacup. The real storm will start later.
If the postings so far on various security boards are correct it looks like it indeed runs something OSX like enough and runs everything even the web browser as ROOT. Now if that is not a hacker dream dunno what is. Every exploit no matter how small will provide the attacker with full access to the system including ability to break out of the ghastly contract obligations to ATT and Apple. While the lack of fine grained privilege system is a general problem for all smartphones, in the apple's case it is made worse by the platform being "bigger" and everything having direct access to the iron.
It is too early to say if the iPhone will be the first phone where the admin vs user and privilege control issue will be finally forced, but there is a considerable likelihood of this happening. Once this happens, it will also inevitably open up as a platform (and we will soon know exactly how much (X)GPL code it contains).
Jog dial? (Score:2)
I don't own an iPod, but all my very early Qualcomm cell phones WAY back in the day had jog-dials. It made it easy to control and navigate all the menus in your phone with simply your thumb. I never understand why it disappeared.
Apples Making Cell Phones? (Score:5, Funny)
Cool, I'll have to check this out.
Harmful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Harmful (Score:5, Informative)
What posturing is the FSF doing? I read the article & the FSF guy parsaid: 'Apple's released a proprietary & DRM-crippled phone - I wonder if it has GPLd software on it?'
The iPhone is both proprietary & crippled by DRM - I don't see where the posturing is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, just saying that implies it does and gplv2 has no provision to stop drm. And who are these people "saving?" Apple customers are more tech savvy than PC buyers and probably know what they are getting into. iTunes proves that DRM is not "crippling" but acceptable to the public and is the defacto way to get legal downloads. The problem here are the fsf snobs who are implying apple as a company is
Re:Harmful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The GPL is extremely permissive (although short of a BSD style, of course), use it if you want - you don't even have to agree to the license for that. Use someone else's software if you want - you're free to do that too. But surely it is nice, and only fair, that if you give away your software to anyone who wants to use it that they tell you what they've done with it and how. The FSF are no
FSF point out flaws in (L)GPL2 (Score:2)
Film at 11.
Yawn.
Change the (i)tune, FSF. Yes, we know that GPL3 is out, and that it's waaaaaaaaay better at infecting proprietary devices than GPL2, and we should all switch to it immediately. It's getting old.
GPL and LGPL software included and documented (Score:4, Informative)
Nice GPLv3 propaganda if you're into the whole "tivoization is ruining the world" thing, but otherwise pretty content free. Also, rather than speculating they could have done some minimal research.
Wow, that surprises me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Its a very childish thing to do, and very unlike the FSF in my opinion.
Scooter Libby was in the news this week, too. Maybe they should claim he might have violated the GPL, too. Double helping of bandwagon jumping?
Show me the FSF quote.. (Score:5, Insightful)
BSD zealot strikes again?
Re: (Score:2)
It was even put in quotes to make it easy to spot.
On the sabre rattling front, if the intent was not to do so, that's an awful use of language. "Interesting" has a long standing history as a euphemism. "May you live in interesting times", for example. "When they ran out of sugar for their coffee, they tried using salt instead. I thought that was an interesting decision", perhaps.
More pertinently - "I believe these people are acting in a manner offensive t
To put it another way... (Score:4, Insightful)
If and when KHTML moves to (L)GPLv3, Apple will just have to start a GPLv2 fork of it.
So, any future contributions by Apple will go to the GPLv2 fork... and if Apple deletes any "...or later..." clause from "their" fork, the GPLv3 version won't even be able to cross-port their changes.
Yes, a proud day for the GPLv3.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't even suggest it! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:To put it another way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... look at all of the Apple apologists coming out of the woodwork.
Look, I use a Macs at home, and wouldn't want to give them up (and would love to have an iPhone) but this story has already gotten ridiculous. To counter the parent as to KHTML moving to (L)GPL3: Sure, if Apple decided to fork it, they could, though they immediately lose a good portion of the benefits of open source if the rest of the developers are working on a v3 version. They have to perform all the quality control and development.
Re:To put it another way... (Score:5, Informative)
What point? iPhone contains GPLv2 code. Apple are complying with the GPLv2.
I don't even OWN an iBuzz!
AFAIK, they are...
Nope - if the projects they are using switch to GPLv3 and they want to use code that others contribute to future versions then they will have to comply with v3. Otherwise, they can go on using and developing the existing GPLv2 code as long as they like - its not as if they don't have their own programmers.
Some people keep on trying to "spin" reality to make it sound as if the GPLv3 can be enforced retroactively. That's a very dangerous game because if industry gets that impression they will not touch the GPL with a bargepole.
Lets see if TiVO complies, or if they just drop Linux in favour of a closed source embedded OS.
The future is here (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
That has nothing to do with the device running on open source software and everything to do with the user-friendliness of the software. Many of the open source advocates take it way too far in my opinion. Open source can be a great development model but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is wether the software does its job properly or not.
Not a problem for Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Tinkering = Voided Warranty (Score:3, Interesting)
Is the typical Slashdot tinkerer willing to assume that risk on a device that costs so much?
Oh Scary... (Score:3, Insightful)
The rules say that the source has to be made available including any changes. There is nothing to stop me say modifying a 1.x kernel and making the changes available. It might not be advantageous but I can do it. I don't have to use the latest revision. This is typical scare mongering of that hippy, sandal sporting, rose tinted spectacle wearing, head in the cloud, idiot, RMS.
consumer reply (Score:4, Insightful)
Consumers / potential iPhone-buyers however just say things "I would like to own an iPod that can also make calls" and simply buy one.
Re:"Run afoul?" (Score:4, Insightful)
I.E. The iPhone becomes a programmable platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Run afoul?" (Score:5, Informative)
So if the iPhone contains LGPL code the non-LGPL parts are covered by section 6:
Tivoization... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Yes, you CAN rebuild a firmware. All the necessary tools can be found on our website or in your Linux distro.
If you follow the procedure, no error message will stop you from linking your new stuff.
This firmware can even be executed inside an emulator, as an added bonus.
It only happens that the hardware refuses to run non-signed and/or non-crypted code, even if that code is valid. But the produced binary code it selft *is* valid."
Those company usually try to give a very specific interpretation to what "operating code" means. To their interpretation, it only means that the users should be able to compile a new valid binary. That's why the GPLv3 had to be made, to make it explicit for LGPL, and to add similar protection against tivoization of the baseline GPL.
Apple and TiVo are intentionally making that interpretation. Because they want to keep exact control on what the iPhone can and can't do. The iPhone can't transfer files over bluetooth (no way to send each other ringtones and MP3 music like usual with other Bluetooth enabled device. Apple is affraid of copyright infringement, even if the Bluetooth falls clearly under the same provision as home taping in most juridictions), the iPhone enforces DRM on played media, etc...
A modified WebKit could clearly play a role as an entry point to allow such actions : after all, it's the code that handles how pages are drawn. It's not impossible to invent a new "tag", include support for this extension into the iPhone, and use that tag to manipulate media while circumventing DRM or exchanging it over bluetooth. And then design a custom
It's a little bit weird and far fetched. But it's exactly the kind of stuff corporation like Apple and TiVo are afraid of : people using GPL to circumvent their precious restrictions. And is exactly what the FSF is fighting for :
{commandment-like voice:ON}A USER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT PLEASES HIM WITH FREE(dom)-SOFTWARE HE RECEIVED, AS LONG AS THE USERS PASS ALONG THOSE FREEDOMS ON THE NEXT IN LINE{/commandment-like voice:OFF} (even if that includes completely subverting the initial GPLed code purpose in order to make it do something completely different than initially planed. In fact, even more so, because it's such creative subversions that can lead to inventing new interesting stuff and develop FLOSS. As said in some
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Run afoul?" (Score:4, Interesting)
If the GPL v3 was retroactive, Tivo would have to recall all their boxes right this second. However, I don't think you can have a retroactive license. You can't invent terms today and say that people agreed to them in the past.
Can you imagine what that would open the door to?
I'm sorry, you inherently agreed to anything Microsoft ever wants from you when you agreed to use any flavor of Windows at any point in your life. We can invent new licenses and terms that go back and override any previous license agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way a license, even one so scathingly viral as (L)GPL, can change the terms in the future and force you to comply. It is simply not legal, though maybe the "copyleft" fantasy land has that concept, enforced by unicorn police.
New license (Score:3, Interesting)
BSD licenses allow for people to take and never give anything back. The GPL has evolved into its own form of shackles, loopholes and lengthy clauses. CC is a pretty decent concept to protect your work. Sun has been under all this pressure to GPL Java for ages. Adobe releases API and code for certain products and technologies like Flash and PDF, but needs to protect their interests. What if I have a technolog
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google creates some YouTube software and releases it under this new license. Tivo gets the software and modifies it, including some new features it wishes to keep proprietary. Under this license, they would be forced to share with Google upon request. The license therefore only protects the originator.
Allowing subsequent developers to reserve portions a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The license wouldn't suit all projects obviously, but for several scenarios such as Java, PDF, Flash, video drivers, etc. it would be perfect. It prevents someone else forking, or developing their own proprietary version while still allowing the code to be redistributed, community developed, and even modified for personal use.
The entire purpose of the license is to protect those who under most circumstances wouldn't fully open up their sources under any other terms. Consider it a "better
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excerpted from v3:
GPL 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
However, that does not apply to earlier versions of the license.
That is why Tivo can still operate.
I won't bother to argue whether or not the clause is good, or if Tivo is evil, rather I would refer you to the huge lkml.org flamefest from the past two weeks. However, I should clarify this is clearly FUD. Even if the iPhone has GPL or LGPL'ed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that the phone has a browser, and that it can sync with iTunes, applying updates is something that is built into the system. iPods update their firmware when you sync them.
If you have proof the phone has LGPL software, and that Apple intends to refuse updates, then by all means get upset. Until then, this is still FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, because Webkit appears to be a fork of KHTML, not "contributing" to it. Contributing to the KHTML project wouldn't require a new projec
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, because Webkit appears to be a fork of KHTML, not "contributing" to it.
Fork or not, they've contributed a great deal. Just ask the KHTML folks.
It isnt about GPLv3 violation. (Score:3, Insightful)
TFA only illustrate that, by using DRM and Trusted Computing, Apple has taken away the freedom to tinker that the GPL was supposed to bring for peace of code like WebKit and such. The user can recompile it, but can't upload the firmware back, because it isn't signed and the trusted computing module will
It isn't your business (Score:3, Insightful)
> Apple has taken away the freedom to tinker that the GPL was
> supposed to bring for peace of code like WebKit and such.
You are entitled to your opinion, but the iPhone belongs to Apple, not to you, and it is none of your business under what terms they decide to sell it. If you dislike the terms, don't buy it. Let the rest of us make our own decision.