Slashdot Mirror

The phone is not the only element that you can not trust.
The SIM card you put inside is even less trustable.

When in the recent past have you seen a court rule on copyright with common sense?

I'm not sure that Usedsoft applied common sense, but rather some convoluted reasoning, but the outcome seems sensible enough. Picking on rulings relevant here, I think the US court's decision in Wallace v. IBM was common sense, as was the finding of the German court in Welte v. Skype.

Perhaps look also at Griggs v. Evans — a pragmatic decision on the facts, to my mind.

Sure, there are some odd judgments, but there are some sensible, practical judges out there too.

This might be buried since I am late, but here is a good definition for featurephone versus smartphone: http://laforge.gnumonks.org/papers/gsm_phone-anatomy-latest.pdf

"A feature phone is a phone that runs the GSM protocol stack (the software implementing the GSM protocol) as well as the user interface and all applications on a single processor."

"A smartphone is a phone that has a dedicated processor for the GSM protocol stack, and another (potentially multi-core) general purpose processor for the user interface and applications."

Sadly, even that is insufficient. What about devices with identical functionality except for this internal hardware difference?

Has this happened? Yes: there are single-cored Nokia S60 devices since around 2006 where the GSM stack (sometimes in it's own 'hosted OS') is run as a service on top of the kernel. You wouldn't be able to spot the difference between a single-core S60v3 device and a device with the GSM stack on a separate core without cracking open the case (or reading the tech specs).

This might be buried since I am late, but here is a good definition for featurephone versus smartphone: http://laforge.gnumonks.org/papers/gsm_phone-anatomy-latest.pdf

"A feature phone is a phone that runs the GSM protocol stack (the software implementing the GSM protocol) as well as the user interface and all applications on a single processor."

"A smartphone is a phone that has a dedicated processor for the GSM protocol stack, and another (potentially multi-core) general purpose processor for the user interface and applications."

Kernel developers are generally not inclined to sue anybody for not releasing the source code to kernel modifications, while busybox developers sue everybody in sight.

Wrong and wrong. I point you to Harold Welte who spends far too much time suing over GPL violations (By which, I mean there are too many GPL violations out there for his time - not that I think it's invalid for him to sue) and it's not the busybox developers that sue, it's the SFLC that sue on behalf of the busybox developers. Important distinction.

... if you read Harald Welte's blog: http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2011/07/14/#20110714-vodafone_femtocell_thc

A blogger (and numerous commenters here) are reading some sort of bizarre nefarious plot by Apple into what is, most likely, a simple resource issue with the wrong person being out on vacation for a week or two, compounded by the fairly rapid build & deploy they needed to do to address the "tracking" issues that recently caused such a stir.

No, you are reading "some sort of bizarre nefarious plot" into the (original) blog post and comments such as mine. I'm saying that Apple is handling this badly, not that they are trying to pull something shady. You don't delay your commercial obligations or product releases because "someone is on vacation". FLOSS license compliance should be part of the binary release process, not an afterthought because the community is nice about such things.

The link was not to gpl-violations.org but to the but to a really crappy blog and I stand by my statement that they where just trying to stir the pot and get ad revenue. Second the post you are talking about isn't even on gpl-violations.org. I had to dig for it http://gnumonks.org/users/laforge/ is the origin link.

I work for a medium sized company and everything takes longer. It really is true that it is hard to get past being a small sized company because things really do change. You must be so careful every step of the way it really is just the way that it is. For a huge company it must be much worse. We joke here that "if it there is a one in a thousand chance that someone will have problems with it we get to hear about it ten times a day."
They have not stopped releasing GPL updates. They have said coming soon. For all we know they are doing a code review of the documentation of the code. That doesn't mean that they don't need to release the code but at this point the name calling and accusations of wrong doing are not going to help. At this point a polite "when can we expect that code drop" instead of accusations is IMHO the correct response. But you can scream and fume if it makes you feel better but I don't think anything will change.
 

However if you go to http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/JavaScriptCore/ and http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/WebCore/, you will find the directories that were missing (and more). Could it be that someone at Apple just didn't update a web page? If you were developing WebKit most likely you would have gotten the code through code repository.

I think that the fact that the iOS 4.3 source download page is not up to date with http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/JavaScriptCore/ and http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/WebCore/ is separate from the claim that iOS versions 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 have not been accompanied by a source release. However, I don't see an easy way to map WebCore and JavaScriptCore versions to iOS versions.

• a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work [..] - accompany doesn't just imply, it means at the same time (as well as the same place).
• c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution. - I'm not aware of such an offer for Webkit, not that it matters since inquiries have been made, there is nothing implying that this can be honored at your leisure, there is an offer you have to honor it, show me precedent that disagrees if I'm wrong.
• d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified materials from the same place. - Meaning, if you distribute the binaries from your website, you can put up the source as well and be in compliance. We wouldn't be discussing this if that was the case. Do you see anything that permits putting the source up a year later or so? No, neither do I, equivalent is pretty clear.

Indeed. Let's not forget that the whole "iphone tracking" issue came up in the last few weeks as well - it'd be a little foolish to think that dealing with that wouldn't cause some other efforts to get derailed.

From the blog post: "So far, it seems they have always provided the respective source code in a timely manner for each and every release they have made." But then they go on to write, "I think it is time that Apple gets their act together and becomes more straight-forward with LGPL compliance."

So, which is it? Either they have a good record of releasing all the appropriate source code in a timely fashion, and this is a simple aberration which will likely be corrected soon, or they have a long-standing record of not complying with the LGPL terms, and they have to "get their act together and become more straight-forward with compliance." You can't cite their years-long history of compliance, then point to one outlier, and say "OOOOH NEFARIOUS PATTERN, Apple is trying to steal our codez!!!11!!"

My best guess: Apple will have this released within a week or two, and it's likely the iphone tracking issue disrupted their plans to have this stuff posted by now, due to resource shifting to manage the sudden shitstorm-in-a-teacup they had to deal with. I further predict that dozens of Slashdot armchair lawyers will clamor for legal action against Apple to right this outrageous wrong, despite the fact that they have no iOS device, nor any interest in developing code against the ios 4.3.3 webkit baseline.

It's like the open source community is deliberately trying to alienate a large corporate supporter. Curious indeed.

In terms of marketing and product design, I give them an "A-".

In terms of good citizenship in the computing community, I give Apple a "D-".

1. Assemble commodity hardware, make it look pretty,
2. Play on people's emotional-social needs and fears of computers (i.e. appeal to sense of belonging, user-friendliness),
3. Beg/borrow/steal Free software (be sure to act surprised and/or indignant when points out a GPL violation) and
4. Mark it way up.

They've certainly innovated, but their biggest innovations are the ones that allow them to become ever more proprietary and aggressive in their approach. They're a throwback to the 1980s, where fragmentation characterized the industry. Drunk with power, their ultimate vision for computing is a fully Apple-vetted "app store" for all their devices, allowing them to dictate what gets installed, and to scrape a commission from every application out there.

The more closed, the better.

It's mildly surprising that "joe six pack" has fallen for this, but it's simply demoralizing that supposedly intelligent and reasonable people have fallen for the hype. I guess giving you a unix-like system with a terminal window is enough to make it cool? Really?

We've all spent the better part of the last decade bashing Microsoft (and rightfully so), but in terms of evil intent, it's obvious who the real thugs are anymore. Microsoft is no longer the real Evil Empire, so I guess that's news...

(Posting anonymously because there are enough rabid fanbois around here anymore...)

Part of the issue here is terminology--throwing around CDMA vs GSM instead of CDMA vs TDMA.

Old style GSM used TDMA, the GSM 3G specifications all use CDMA. The protocols running on the layer above how signals are multiplexed are still different. GSM TDMA networks may still be running, but really the faster they die the better, GSM TDMA is a horrible mess (there's a lot of good info over at Harald Welte's Web Log) that is incredibly difficult to scale.

Interestingly enough, EV-DO is now a 3GPP standard and so ... technically all of the US carriers are GSM providers now. Nothing except the will to remain the sole provider of devices prevents Verizon/Sprint from giving users USIMs at this point...

Since Verizon et al finally joined the 3GPP, there was actual work toward unifying the myriad network and radio protocols that have accreted over the last 25 years of digital wireless, and this is LTE. It looks like all Northern American providers at least want to ditch their old tower equipment and move as quickly as possible toward this.

There is some hope that Verizon and friends will finally start offering phones with USIMs and play nicely with the rest of the world, but I somehow doubt that (I am an eternal pessimist). Especially in light of yet another major carrier being swallowed by AT&T II (Cingular/ATTWS)... how long until AT&T I (Verizon, formerly Bell Atlantic...) reswallows AT&T II) finishes the process and that's all we really have left?

Still, from a technical perspective what are traditionally known as CDMA and GSM are indeed merging into one standard, and this is probably a good thing. Hopefully the FCC and FTC will step up and ensure competition (heh).

As pointed out by Harald Welte (he's as good an authority on the subject as any), the Samsung Galaxy S is a good candidate. Samsung makes all of its source open and there probably isn't firmware locking, AFAIK.

It was copied from Harald Weite's blog, for what that information might be worth.

For a response from someone who actually knows something about the subject, see Harold Welte's blog

Maybe you should read the presentation here.

http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2009/11/04/#20091104-android_mythbusters

The Executive Summary is that "Android is a screwed, hard-coded, non-portable abomination."

And it has nice juicy parts like "how Google has simply thrown 5-10 years of Linux userspace evolution into the trashcan and re-implemented it partially for no reason."

According to Harold Welte, some African operators are setting up their GSM equipment to skip every second TDMA time slot, resulting in an almost 70 Km (~43 mi) range at the expense of halving the capacity of a cell. It's an interesting "hack", although not the best solution for high-population areas.

And when you say "CDMA", you are presumably meaning IS-95. CDMA is just a multiplexing method that is used by IS-95 (2G), CDMA2000 (3G), and UMTS/W-CDMA; the 3G evolution of GSM. It's also used by GPS.

You sure about that?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure about that.

To transmit on a licensed frequency the entire device doing the transmitting needs to be approved, not just the hardware. That means that any software which is directly involved in transmission or reception _needs_ to be locked down. It can mplement all sorts of friendly ABIs and talk as nicely as it wants to with the end user, but allowing the end user to run random firmware on a device which broadcasts on licensed frequencies is a one way ticket to getting beaten with a stick by your friendly neighbourhood regulatory agency.

You sure about that?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure about that.

To transmit on a licensed frequency the entire device doing the transmitting needs to be approved, not just the hardware. That means that any software which is directly involved in transmission or reception _needs_ to be locked down. It can mplement all sorts of friendly ABIs and talk as nicely as it wants to with the end user, but allowing the end user to run random firmware on a device which broadcasts on licensed frequencies is a one way ticket to getting beaten with a stick by your friendly neighbourhood regulatory agency.

Or wherever those pesky government regulations require them to. You can't just hack together your own code, plug it into the GSM network and expect the FCC to just smile and look the other way.

You sure about that?

(That covers the server side; if you can have your own server, you can s

Just because you need to follow regulations/conventions/standards doesn't mean you can't use FOSS to do so.

Can someone put a figure on the cost of equipment involved? This would be very useful for folks on large farms where radio (read Walkie-talkies) do not cut it.

The setup seems to be:

• two BTS with two TRX each - Each BTS is a surplus Siemens BS-11, which they are selling for 300 Euro. (I almost bought one at 25C3, until I realized they were almost 46 Kg each)
• two antennas -- included in the purchase price of the BS11
• E1-to-PCI interface card - 350 EUR

So, I'd call that about 1000 EUR, not including the Linux PC driving the whole setup.

the blog entry

why hiring Harald Welte was the right thing to do on the technical side and on the community and legal side.

Posted only today, the answer to your question is available from the same source as the original article:

http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2008/09/01/#20080901-via-xorg-opensource-faq

Here's the scoop from the man who made it happen, Harald Welte.

And confirmed by Harald Welte, of http://www.gpl-violations.org/ at his blog: http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2008/05/08/#20080508-olg_muenchen-skype

Duke Nukem Forever is vaporware. Though it is late, the Neo1973 is certainly not vaporware. See http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/2007/06/15/

I think you're being overly cynical, the people who are involved in this include people like Harald Welde (of the campaign to stop GPL violations. I think they genuinely believe in this, they're not just marketing weenies out to make a quick buck.

If you look at it from a black or white points of you, yes it's a joke.

But life ain't like that. This thing looks almost white, and if Harald Welte (who is/was part of the project) thinks it's good enough, then I might be inclined to believe him.

http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/2006/11/08#200 61108-my_no_longer_secret_project

I confirm that the above comment was by Harald Welte, just in case someone raises a doubt. :)

You can confirm my bonafides via Harald's blog entry here.

Yeah the N5200 does use linux. But I did not find any clear hint to this on the Thecus website.

Also I'm missing any documentation of how to upgrade the firmware to your own linux system.

If you want the source of their linux look here:
ftp://ftp.gpl-devices.org/pub/vendors/Thecus/

They tried to hide the linux, but without success:
http://gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/2006/02/24/

So until they openly say they are using linux and offer a way to upgrade the software on the system I will NOT buy one of these.

I did think about getting one of these. It has really nice features and if I could put my own linux system on one of the hard disk I could use it also as a dsl router and proxy (squid).

Anyone knows of a similar device with an upgradeble linux?

Relax. Linux' large developer base is the reason for its mess and increasing bureaucracy. It's getting to the stage where code being too clean for the rest of the kernel is a reason to not include it in mainline (this was an argument against Reiser4).

Working on more minor projects with less random hacker interest and less pressure to keep up is the only way to result in a clean product. Rushing to compete rarely achieves anything. Not many people care about the quality of the code until it affects the quality of the product. And every Linux 'oops, my last commit broke everything, sorry' changelog entry speaks for itself.

This is why the BSDs survive despite having several orders of magnitude less developer resources. Less to manage, low pressure, good work done. FreeBSD is falling to Linux' disease of over-coding under-thinking, in particular the new complexity in 5/6 which is making it much harder to develop. They have recovered from the brutal side effects of the new SMP stack but how DragonFly's competes has yet to be seen, and the latter was done with much less mucking about, less segfaults, and much less in the way of resources.

However, Linux' incredibly large developer base means it can do just about anything (except, strangely, proper jails), and also run on just about anything too. However, not everything is done cleanly. In *one*day* (as per my reading of KernelPlanet, NOT by post time), these two posts on KernelPlanet made me break into a cold sweat:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/zaitcev/43337.htm l
http://ganesha.gnumonks.org/~laforge/weblog/2005/1 2/06/#20051206-libusb

The first outlines how failure to plan ahead lead to a hacky solution to what should have been a simple problem. The latter is an example of how some kernel developers just go and do something really stupid and people don't notice until it's too late.

Sure, these things happen in other systems, but they're easier to notice when there's only 20 developers, compared to 20,000. When you can afford to track every commit, you can easily notice if something stupid is happening. Add to this that Linux committers are fine with accepting small *anonymous* commits, and you have a clear path to utter failure.

So don't worry about your project. Sure few people will even know it exists, but at least you can sleep at night knowing it's as clean as you can make it.

Or use your talent to empower DragonFly BSD, which still has the potential to usurp Linux with its SMP stack, one of the most popular reasons to use Linux instead of (say) NetBSD.

And why should a company even care ? It seems he's a no-one, a busy body who spends his time interferring in the affairs of others, worse yet he's a Trekkie!!!! http://gnumonks.org/users/laforge/ Though what he is doing is on the right track, he is trying to highlight the misuse of open source software by companies, but if GPL-Violations.org is to get any credibility they need some tougher sounding backers : Lawyer types, other big companies who DO play the game right ... and they need to drop the "I wish I was Lt LaForge" stuff ;-)

Since the site is slashdotted, here are the links to the advisories on the netfilter sites:

• mirror 1
  
• mirror 2
• mirror 3