FSF Rattles Tivo Saber At Apple

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."

Comments

How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there isn't any evidence of GPL violation, why make the accusation?

This is despicable sensationalism, and not what I'd expect from the FSF.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! This is exactly what I'd expect from the FSF.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[bheer]

Because the GPL3 is not about "free as in liberty", it's about "free as in do what RMS says". This is fine if you agree with RMS, but you should be aware that there are a lot of people, including people who've made valuable contributions to open-source, who don't.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

And thanks for that. RMS is a blowhard jackass. "Free" software isn't actually free, and now with v3 it's even less free. I know, I know, they needed to restrict your freedoms in order to guarantee them, because $EVIL_ENTITY would abuse the software otherwise.

What is the point of "free" software that you can't actually do as you please with? It's just trading one set of shackles for another. That's all fine and dandy if the RMS shackles don't bother you, but somehow it's still evil and despicable when the {Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc.} shackles don't bother you. Hypocrisy at its finest. I don't have a problem with either, but I'm really tired of being attacked by FOSS zealots because I don't think closed-source is a crime against humanity. Why shouldn't people get to make their own decisions about how public or private they want to make their work?

"Free" software is great. It's awesome for everyone it works for, and there's some great products. But it certainly isn't the solution for everyone, particularly for companies who want to share with the community but don't want to give up the farm. The LGPL isn't great about that, and v3 just makes things worse. If I invite you over for wine and cheese, I didn't sign up to have you clear out my whole wine cellar and order $1700 cheese wheels from Italy on my dime, you know?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[vadim_t]

So if you don't agree with it, why contribute?

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.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[ozmanjusri]

This is exactly what I'd expect from the FSF.

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;

"You don't want your phone to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up." Jobs' statement is FUD and needs to be challenged.

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 that summarises their attitude.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[xaxa]

Why not link to the original article on the FSF website? (Tectonic isn't respecting the copyright of the FSF article "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.")

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this is JUST like FSF.

Whenever a well hyped and media attention garnering product gets released, the first thing FSF does is point out something that irks them in it (and god forbid if it isn't completely free, open source and the devs aren't starving or paid by publicly funded institutions - I mean making money is a sin and anyone doing so should be stoned to death..)

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Eunuchswear]

"You don't want your computer to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the Internet, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cox doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."

What a prat.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

What is the point of "free" software that you can't actually do as you please with?

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:How isn't this FUD?

[antifoidulus]

If you don't agree with what it "stands for", here is a real simple solution, DON'T BUY ONE!

See, was that so hard? You can buy your openMoko or whatever and be happy, and someone who has a different set of priorities than you do can buy the iPhone and be happy. Why does that bother some people? My personal opinion is that some FSF zealots see their cause as a religion and they cannot rest until they convert the "unbelievers" by whatever means necessary.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[krenaud]

Have you read TFA? Nobody accuses anybody for any violations.

Here is a quote from TFA which I think summarises what it is about:

"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, "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."

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mwvdlee]

So, a statement like "It will be interesting to see to what extent Richard Stallman has sexually abused male platipi" isn't an accusation? And how about "What impact will laws against animal-sex have on the long-term prospects for people like Richard Stallman?"?

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:How isn't this FUD?

[b1ufox]

Hey, thats right. But atleast FSF needs a PR stuntman like Ballmer.

Let them try and realize whats wrong with this *cheap* PR stunt[if it is indeed].

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with the press release, it's Peter Browns sound bite that's the problem. Neither KHTML or any core components of OSX (Samba isn't a core component) are covered by the GPL. The quote reads like a thinly veiled threat and it's the kind of nonsense many FSF supporters try to disassociate themselves from.

I'm not about to move any of my projects to GPL3 if this is how the FSF are going to conduct themselves. If this happens again, I'll be considering relicensing my GPL2 works out of sheer embarrassment.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Professor_UNIX]

Hypocrisy at its finest. I don't have a problem with either, but I'm really tired of being attacked by FOSS zealots because I don't think closed-source is a crime against humanity. Why shouldn't people get to make their own decisions about how public or private they want to make their work?

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. The problem arises when you're taking other people's code that they have chosen to license under the GPL willingly and modify it to suit your needs only to release it as part of your proprietary package without releasing your changes under the GPL as the license requires. If you don't want to share in the software then DON'T USE GPL'd code in your project! It's as simple as that!

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

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 continues to the asinine "libre" descriptor--no such thing. True libre code wouldn't come with a license at all. It would be released upon the world for whatever purpose anyone wanted it.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[suv4x4]

If there isn't any evidence of GPL violation, why make the accusation?

This is despicable sensationalism, and not what I'd expect from the FSF.

Funny thing is, Microsoft promotes the exact same sentiment towards businesses regarding GPL. Microsoft believe it's harmful to free software, FSF believe it's beneficial.

One of them is dead wrong.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

Exactly, when I see a statement like this:

...a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner.

I have images in my head of my iPhone stealing my money, calling my boss and telling him off, etc. Maybe, just maybe, it will do everything that owners want it to do (make phone calls, play music, surf the net). Granted there may be some things I would like it to do that it won't. Buy something else then.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, there are some people who don't care about freedom? really? What's the whitehouse phonenumber again?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

But you're not allowed to do whatever you want with it, and you're not actually giving it away free of restrictions.

*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:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Essentially, the restriction you get with GPL is that you can't add restrictions to keep people from using the source code. That includes using software patents and the DMCA to keep people from using the source code now that the GPL3 is out.
Let me explain it as clearly as I can: Going by the standard of the GPL, your freedom does not include the freedom to take mine away.
You can still think that the GPL is evil and removes freedom, but don't be afraid to change your mind about something. It's not healthy to remain too static in one's world view.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[SkunkPussy]

You can do absolutely anything you want whatsoever with the software with absolutely no limitations at all, provided you don't distribute the software. If you choose to distribute then other people get the same freedoms to do absolutely anything they want.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

But if you distribute, you lose the freedom to do absolutely anything you want. Because at that time, you're required by the current licensing to share all of your code, including specific sections and segments you might prefer to keep proprietary. You can't withhold code once you open the distribution floodgate, which makes commercialization a tricky venture.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[jkrise]

If there isn't any evidence of GPL violation, why make the accusation?

This is despicable sensationalism, and not what I'd expect from the FSF.

I don't think there's any accusation, just sabre-rattling... a publicity stunt. The FSF has always been about publicity and community action; more than a software development or distribution outfit. By suggesting that the IPhone uses code derived from GPLed work, while the device itself is crippled, the FSF has well utilised a nice popular platform to explain it's agenda and purpose. Very smart, in my opinion.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[ClaraBow]

"You don't want your computer to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the Internet, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cox doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."

Well, the whole network went down
yesterday without any help.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Yes it is, you pedantic idiot

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

It certainly is free in different ways, but a lot of that depends on what you need from it. Take, for instance, a proprietary development license scenario--say something written with XCode and Core APIs, since you like Apple examples. You can do whatever you want with Apple's libraries and on the compilers provided. You don't have to share your code with anyone if you don't want to (not even Apple). If you choose to release your code, it can be under whatever terms you want. The proprietary platform and proprietary license are more "free" to that developer than the (L)GPL, but they are more restrictive to secondary developers who want more than the primary developer wants to provide. The GPL tries to "force" the system to prevent what RMS perceives as abuse, attempting to guarantee rights for both the primary developer and secondary developers, but ultimately alienating a lot of primary developers and secondary developers (because of how it works down the chain even on tertiary developers). Like I said, though, (L)GPL is great if its caveats don't get in your way, and generally speaking, it is indeed "more free" than proprietary offerings, from our perspective. But it's not more free from Apple's, so I'm not sure the net balance actually changes from a "universal" standpoint. I agree that something completely free doesn't require a license--that would be "libre" software. Unfortunately "noone's ever said it was free of restrictions" isn't quite the case, because "libre" has been claimed for the RMS licensing models. It's deceptive, because it's not truly *libre* at all. It's important to note that I don't disagree with what you're saying, and I don't disagree with the existence of these licenses, or even with the restrictions they impose. I only disagree with the idea that it's intrinsically "THE" solution to writing software, and that anyone who would *choose* to use proprietary tools is a moron or greedy or evil in some other capacity.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, a statement like "It will be interesting to see to what extent Richard Stallman has sexually abused male platipi" isn't an accusation? And how about "What impact will laws against animal-sex have on the long-term prospects for people like Richard Stallman?"? I cannot begin to fathom what makes you post such nonsense. Clearly, Apple has used GPL derived code in it's operating systems and other software, so speculating about the impact of a new GPL on Apple's business model seems reasonable. Why do you resent any criticism about Apple? And what makes you retaliate with such obnoxious comparisons?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[jkrise]

And thanks for that. RMS is a blowhard jackass. "Free" software isn't actually free, and now with v3 it's even less free. I know, I know, they needed to restrict your freedoms in order to guarantee them, because $EVIL_ENTITY would abuse the software otherwise.

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?

[explodingpickle.org]

Actually, that's exactly what I'd expect from the FSF.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[jkrise]

It certainly is free in different ways, but a lot of that depends on what you need from it. What exactly was Apple looking for, when it chose to start with GPL code to develop a locked-down, proprietary device? The GPL is anti-proprietary, it's anti-lockdown, it's anti-anti-freedom. Why did Apple need to use GPL code in it's products, if it didn't believe in what the GPL stood for, and stands for?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Restrictions are placed on you, so the software will remain free.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

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? Nothing at all. RMS created the license, not the software, and it's not about "spreading freedom" in the slightest. It's about spreading software socialism and quid pro quo.

There's nothing wrong with that, but RMS takes a very "come with us or burn at the stake" approach to it. If he really wanted to spread software freedom, he'd be peddling public domain code. RMS doesn't want to give anything away without strings--he wants to pretend to give it away, and then use that as leverage to demand that he be able to appropriate anything of yours, no matter how small or great the benefit of GPL code provided your project.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[00_NOP]

Your argument is nonsense. Think of the typical US legal example - freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to cry "fire" in a crowded theatre. Freedom of travel is not licence to drive your car on the pavement. With freedom comes responsibility and, in software, that means acting in such a way as to ensure you do not diminish others' freedoms.

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 obviously garbage.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

Apple didn't start with GPL code at all--they started with BSD and proprietary licensed code, better known as OS X. Apple's web browser, Safari, includes some LGPL components based on the KHTML rendering engine. The LGPL isn't anti-proprietary, anti-lockdown, or anti-anti-freedom.

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?

[hdparm]

I am amused every time I see someone showing utter ignorance of the basic GPL premise after lurking around slashdot for, according to slashdot ID, at least five years. You had plenty of time to learn four simple lines of the free software definition but you chose to spread FUD instead.

GPL is the only license that equaly protects freedom of software producers who opted to show their code and users of that software.

The article, however, is not about that. It is about defectiveness of the iPhone by way of using policy driven DRM which restricts FREEDOM of people who purchased device and media to use the same device and same media as they are pleased.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[jkrise]

Nothing at all. RMS created the license, not the software, and it's not about "spreading freedom" in the slightest. It's about spreading software socialism and quid pro quo.. Uh.. wwwwhaatttt? GPL isn't about spreading freedom? What does it say in the 1st para of the GPL? The preamble??? ...The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom ....

The GPL is first and last about spreading freedom. If Apple is not about promoting software freedom, they ought to have chosen some other licensed code to include in their offerings, not the GPL of all things.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

But if you distribute, you lose the freedom to do absolutely anything you want

Nope, you can still use the code to do whatever you want.

You just lose the right to restrict someone else's freedom to do absolutely anything they want.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[sabinm]

I'm afraid free in this sense doesn't mean what you think it means in either of it's meanings.

In this case, one word cannot completely convey the meaning of what is offered in the GPL, but free is its close approximate.

When someone offers something for free they usually place limits on how much freedom you have with it because human nature tends to take as much as permitted. So that means that even though you are "free to modify and use the code in any way" you are not free to make it "non-free". Which is essentially what you're asking everyone to do when you take the work of a community, freely given, and then put restrictions on it so that no one else can use it the way you use it. You want to do that, develop all the calls and api yourself. Call it anything you want. Or select a license that is more attune with your philosophy. There are plenty out there that are significantly less free.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[smilindog2000]

I feel a lot better using systems that are open. It's not so much a desire to be able to change the widget, but more a desire to trust it. In the old days, you could trust that your electronic gadgets did nothing but what you expected. They were simple hardware, with little software. You could open the box and figure out what it did. Now days, with software dominating the technology in gadgets, I prefer that software to be open. Who's to say that your iPhone isn't spying on you? When you run Vista, you must agree to trust Microsoft with all kinds of personal information. My cell phone service provider knows where I am 24/7, and I'm not allowed to turn that feature off. When I browse the network through My Ubuntu box, I have to trust my ISP whenever I transmit unencrypted data. With the iPhone, I have to trust Apple with all of those things at the same time! Yeah, I wanna see the code.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, Freedom...to comply with our license terms.

In case you hadn't noticed, it's a license. That means it's inherently restricted. It says you can't withhold source for a few proprietary components simply because you used GPL code somewhere in the project. That's not freedom. That's forced publication.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[jkrise]

Apple didn't start with GPL code at all--they started with BSD and proprietary licensed code, better known as OS X. Apple's web browser, Safari, includes some LGPL components based on the KHTML rendering engine. The LGPL isn't anti-proprietary, anti-lockdown, or anti-anti-freedom. According to this quote, In Settings / About, there's a hugenormous list of license stuff, including many BSD, MIT, and one or two GPL or LGPL licenses.

Looks like the product has ended up with a few GPL and LSPL components after all. Besides, the LGPL is also an FSF creation, and the FSF has always been anti-proprietary, anti-lockdown, or anti-anti-freedom.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

So the iPhone isn't for you then. You won't buy one. I do have one serious issue with your list of rants. Your cell phone provider NEEDS to know where you are at least within the radius of a cell tower. That's kind of how it works. They may not need to store that info, but cell phones don't work without it. That said, I (and most people) aren't that paranoid, but if you are, then you have the option to not use the iPhone.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

The LGPL exists specifically to ALLOW proprietary products to use certain GPL libraries. It therefore can't be anti-proprietary, which is the same thing as anti-lockdown, which is the same thing as anti-anti-freedom.

Looks like the product has ended up with a few GPL and LSPL components after all. Well you don't say, Sherlock! I guess "includes some LGPL components" escaped your keen observation. However, "started with" and "ended up with" are not the same, unlike your other three terms.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[bentcd]

I know, I know, they needed to restrict your freedoms in order to guarantee them No, they don't. They restrict your freedoms in order to guarantee the freedoms of others. Specifically, they restrict the freedoms of the software developer in order to empower the end user. That is what the GPL is all about: take power away from the developer and give it to the end user. With this in mind, it is predictable that many software developers will rail against it.
When GPL is advertised as "free as in speech", this is mainly directed at the end user. For him, GPL software is indeed free as in speech (to the extent that analogy holds) because the user can do whatever he pleases with it. Once the user transforms into a software developer, however, things change. He is now on the other side of the fence and must abide by the requirement that he should give up power of his own and give it to his end users.

What is the point of "free" software that you can't actually do as you please with? It's just trading one set of shackles for another. That's all fine and dandy if the RMS shackles don't bother you, but somehow it's still evil and despicable when the {Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc.} shackles don't bother you. Hypocrisy at its finest. It would help if you actually understood the topic before you started ranting on it. GPL empowers the end user while MS, Apple, IBM, etc., generally don't. Empowering the end user is seen as one of the modern ideals and as such it is glorified above the aforementioned corporations who generally just want to bleed as much money as possible out of the end user and who wouldn't dream of empowering him unless it involves some serious dollar amounts changing hands.
GPL generally says: screw the developer, we're in this for the benefit of the user. There is nothing hypocritical about it, even if this particular sort of idealism may not appeal overly much to developers' egoes.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[WMD_88]

How funny that Jobs made a comment like that while teaming up with AT&T - the company that said essentially the same thing about answering machines, etc. back in the day.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[jkrise]

The FSF has not made any accusations... merely speculated on the impact of GPL3 on future locked-down devices. I don't think Apple is in violation of any licenses, GPL or LGPL. The issue is about intent and posturing - the FSF has gained publicity by seemingly aligning itself with a commercially successful product - the iPhone. By stating that it is a crippled device, they have said it is anti-GPL in spirit.

Smart way for the FSF to get mindshare in the marketplace, is the way I see it.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[0xdeadbeef]

Indeed. And we should never criticize Microsoft, or the RIAA, or network neutrality opponents like AT&T.

After all, if we never buy software, or music, or use the internet, these groups have no influence over our lives and we should really just mind our own business.

The funny thing is that I could care less about the free software zealots - the iPhone is an ominous trend because it signifies a future where general purpose computers don't exist, and instead you have specialized appliances which only work on proprietary networks. It is as much a threat to people who like to make money as it is to those who give it away, because it means the hardware manufacturer and the network carrier are both gatekeepers on who is and isn't allowed to write software.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me explain it as clearly as I can: Going by the standard of the GPL, your freedom does not include the freedom to take mine away.

You never had the freedom to run arbitrary software on a terminal device that forms part of a mobile phone provider's network. NOT YOURS. No-one is taking any rights away.

On the other hand, if the legal traps in the GPL give you the right to run your own software then
- Apple lose the right to market a turnkey solution in preference to an open hardware platform.
- Network providers lose the right to test all the software that will interact with their network.

It is this loss of rights that gives the lie to the concept of "free as in freedom". Every new right you give out reduces someone else's freedom. Users are the supposed beneficiary; the reality is that many users benefit from "free as in beer" software, but practically none are feeling the love from Stallman's politically loaded "free as in freedom". Many users would like their suppliers to stay in business and keep providing updates; many employees want to keep their jobs and those who understand the economy don't want a revenue generating sector wiped out via a legal loophole (the ability to create viral licenses).

The "freedom" that Stallman and his ilk babble on about really is a thinly disguised platform for socialism. It casts users as proletariat and anyone who sells anything in the role of oppresive industrialist. It preys on victim self-identity among those who over-estimate their value to society and who fear the motivation of competition. It imposes rule after rule after rule and its mob of enforcers display a truly disturbing brand of mindless zealotry in coming after those who innocently indulge in free association within a free market in a free world but (and perhaps without even knowning) once downloaded some software that described itself as "Free".

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[teknopurge]

It may be unpopular, but Jobs is right.

A cell phone "should" be open as much as you own your cable or DSL service. The companies license you use through a managed endpoint: cable box, cell phone, whatever. You are not entitled to hack their infrastructure up as much as you want. Don't agree? Deploy your own network. It's a free country so long as your rights don't encroach on someone else's.

Regards,

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

I never said that the FSF made any accusations regarding Apple's product. Further, I agree with your assessment of TFA. I said it was a crappy, misleading Slashdot story.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[smilindog2000]

Your cell phone provider NEEDS to know where you are at least within the radius of a cell tower.

Err... no. By law in the US, your cell phone provider needs to know where you are within about 25 feet. The public reason for this law is so that emergency response crews can find you in an emergency. The private reason is so law enforcement can get warrants to find out exactly where you've been. The secret reason is so the NSA can follow us all around without warrents, and see who's hanging out with suspected terrorists. The business reasons are for more of the same kind of data mining that businesses already do. Everybody wins, so long as cell phone users remain ignorant.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[bheer]

If we're talking about users' freedom, and since so much of the GPL applies to developer toolchain software, what about the users' (i.e., developers) to use those tools and still have a viable business model? The FSF is clearly in the business of pushing an agenda with their license, one that'll force vendors to change business models to survive. The unforgivable part is there was no attempt to grandfather in existing users who might be harmed. In fact, there was a "we don't like 'em, go get 'em" mentality that makes me very uncomfortable.

> Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.

Except that it is debatable whether Tivo and iPhone are distributing software. For anyone not completely steeped in the FSF viewpoint, it's a fair statement that the Tivo and iPhone are in fact, hardware (more importantly, customs and tax laws would back this view).

Also, what bugs me is that the GPL3 does not even pretend to be fair. Any "corporate" device can get away with Tivo-ization. In my more cynical moments, I wonder if this is because of IBM's sucking up to (and donating $$$ to) RMS.

Laws and technology influence one another. The way the FSF is going, the only software worth selling in a few years will be overcomplicated "enterprise" software packages that no one can do anything with unless some high-priced consultants come and do it for you (and do such dreary business tasks that hackers won't even want to touch it), or apps over the web -- until the GPLvNext incorporates the AGPL and busts that particular loophole.

My prediction? None of that will happen -- business will start to increasingly stay away from later versions of the GPL because RMS forgot about one basic right in his little manifesto -- the right to make a living.

> I am amused every time I see someone showing utter ignorance of the basic GPL premise after lurking around slashdot for, according to slashdot ID, at least five years.

Heh. If I'd actually bothered to create an account when I started reading /., I'd have a 3 digit account. All I can say is that I'm glad Slashdot groupthink isn't contagious.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

Well, what part of my statement was wrong? I said AT LEAST the radius of the cell tower's reception range. 25 ft falls into that range. Also lack of paranoia != ignorance. I think most cell phone users are aware of the fact that they can be tracked by their phone.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

There's no lack of understanding. Calling a product "free" when all it does is leverage a different balance of power is misleading. The Latin "libre" does not apply here, because it's not freedom at all. It's not universally applied.

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:How isn't this FUD?

[dknj]

triangulation my friend. your cell phone is talking to 2-4 cell phone towers to ensure it has the best signal. the phone and towers can negotiate tradeoffs, similar to planes being picked up by new traffic control towers. in order to talk, it sends a beacon with your esn. the tower remembers you incase the call needs to switch to that tower. by consequence, the cell phone company can easily determine your location by calculating your round time trip to each tower. law makers know this and told cell providers to plug this on top of a google map. thats how they know where you are to within 25 feet. so this isn't really a "feature" you can turn off (unless you like to have your call lost everytime you handshake with the next tower).. if big brother didn't ask for it, cell providers would undoubtly still datamine and sell it to advertisers

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Choad Namath]

That's ridiculous. A cell phone or cable box isn't part of their infrastructure any more than your PC is part of your ISP's infrastructure. I can be reasonably sure that you're running software on your computer that isn't approved by your ISP, so I suggest that you deploy your own network.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

Which is it?

Nope, you can still use the code to do whatever you want.

You just lose the right to restrict someone else's freedom to do absolutely anything they want. You can't do whatever you want and simultaneously lose the right to do something. These are mutually exclusive conditions.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[smilindog2000]

I think most cell phone users are aware of the fact that they can be tracked by their phone.

You're statement about cell towers is correct, but it's the 25 feet tracking that I'm concerned about. Most users actually don't know they are being tracked whenever they carry their phone.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

I'm afraid the concept of "libre" is incompatible with the idea of restrictions. Again, I'm not opposed to the license or its terms. I'm opposed to the notion that it is the only way to do things, and that everyone else should burn in hell for not agreeing in the divine perfection of the GPL for everyone.

Just witness the moderation on this discussion. Every person who has said anything negative about the GPL or RMS has been modded, in some part, troll and/or flamebait, despite being neither. The moderation is simply proving my point.

RMS and his zealot followers (this does not include all supporters of the GPL, all open source supporters, or all Slashdotters) are 100% intolerant of anyone who does not agree with his interpretation of "freedom" or who thinks there is room for more than one solution to software licensing for different people and purposes.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[jonwil]

More than likely Apple has gone the cheap route and is running the entire phone operating system (including the low level GSM, GPRS and EDGE) on the one CPU (unlike, say, Motorola EZX or OpenMoko Neo1973 which use a seperate CPU that is tightly locked down and runs the low level GSM/GPRS/etc code and is communicated with via GSM standard AT commands)

Assuming Apple have gone for the 1 CPU route, it becomes even harder to allow just anyone to write code running on that CPU because it can threaten FCC certification of the product.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Altus]

"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. "

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?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

Well, that article doesn't really say anything about how many people know they can be tracked by their cell phone. It does have a lot paranoid speculation about what is happening with that information. Again, anybody who has an idea of how cell phones work know they could be tracked with some level of detail. Most of them don't care. People who don't know how cell phones work don't care. I don't care. Some people (such as yourself) do care. It all works out.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor bhear,

I guess you didn't know that if you speak unkindly of RMS, his faithful zealots will mark you as a troll and flamebait.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[joost]

The iPhone does not contain any GPL code. Only BSD and WebKit (a separate license). See? FUD.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mooreti1]

I'm sorry, my friend, but linking to the original article doesn't make the quote by Peter Brown any less true. Slashdot quoted him accurately. Statements such as that frustrate me simply because it shows that the future of open-source is being led by zealots, not reasonable men of clear thought and intelligence. In the future Mr. Brown might want to fact check his mouth before opening it.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Context is the answer child.

Use the software as you see fit. If you give it to others, you have to extend that right to them.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[smilindog2000]

It's cool technology, I agree. I'm not so paranoid that I turn my cell phone off, and actually, I'd consider buying the iPhone if it were a bit smaller. I don't think it will fit in my pocket with my keys very well. If they let me program the darned thing, I might just have to buy one, though. Selling my information to advertisers doesn't bother me that much. I've noticed, for example, that banner adds seem really well focused on some sites, like eetimes. For one thing, they tell me that they're selling, and even give me the option (in theory) to opt-out (which I do).

So, here's my favorite example of what we could accomplish in the open-source community if iPhone were open. We could all provide our position data through a truly anonymous protocol to a central web site (open-source is required to believe the anonymous part). This data could be used to create up-to-date road maps of the whole US, and it would allow our iPhones to be used as a GPS while driving. With accurate traffic info, it could even suggest how best to get to work on any particular day at any particular time, and it might even know if an accident has changed traffic patters. I've wanted to write that app for about 10 years now, and the iPhone looks like the perfect platform.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[ThosLives]

I think the big catch here is what is "derivative work."

For instance, if I distribute a new operating system that is proprietary but I include with it a GPL application, does that make the whole operating system fall under the GPL? I surely hope not!

So, if the "proprietary" bits of the iPhone are all in the operating system, and they happen to have GPL bits in the Safari-based browser (or whatever), I don't think the entire iPhone code-base is "derivative" to whatever the GPL has.

In fact, I'm pretty certain that there's not even anything in any version of the GPL that says "if you have a GPL app on a system, then you have to allow people to install or modify or remove anything on that system, including that GPL app".

Another dumb example: I have a microwave that happens to use GPL timer code for the clock. Does that mean the entire microwave controller software is derivative of the GPL bits?

Personally, I think a rigorous, sensible, objective definition of "derivative work" needs to be established to get rid of all these emotional debates. In my mind, "derivative work" would be something along the lines of "it's based on something so much that you can't replace it with another implementation."

That is, if a piece of code uses a GPL clock, it's not a derivative if any old clock will work given the correct interface tweaks. Basically the old "if you use it as a plug-in infrastructure nuts-and-bolts thing, it's not a derivative work." However, something like a file system or nifty prioritization library might not be replaceable - that is, the functionality of the overall system depends on the explicit functionality of a bit of code - now *that* is a derivative work. Anyway, those aren't intended to be rigorous or objective, just some probably circumstantial examples...

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's not just the "free" software that you have to extend that right to, it's your own, independent work in far too many cases. It's the viral nature of the GPL, and it's not a fantasy.

Being required to pass on the free software that you used with the right to do as they please is one thing, but the GPL requires that you pass on the whole farm in all sorts of situations. It's the GPL dictating what you can do with your own work simply because it touched some GPL'd code.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mdwh2]

The proprietary platform and proprietary license are more "free" to that developer than the (L)GPL,

You have a point for the GPL, but not the LGPL - you can use LGPL libraries without having to share your code.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by "and on the compilers provided." - using a GPL compiler doesn't place any restrictions on my code.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[wootest]

Right, but no one is expecting Apple to open up its cellular network communication API. Just the rest of the stuff, so we can build real apps for the phone itself.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Genevish]

Ted Kazinsky called. Your shack in the woods is ready for you...

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mdwh2]

Socialism would be that the software is owned by the public - i.e., giving it away to the public domain. But as you note, this isn't what the GPL is, and indeed, you criticise the GPL for being socialist, whilst at the same time criticising it for not being public domain!

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Software released under the GPL is still owned by private entities or individuals, and works fine under capitalism.

As for freedom, you have to realise that "freedom" is not an absolute - it's like saying you don't have true freedom because you aren't free to hit other people. Most people in a society accept that freedom does not include the right to take away other people's freedom. As a result, whether or not public domain is more free than GPL is a matter of opinion. What is clear is that both are more free than closed-source code.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

It does if you use glibc, and the LGPL still requires source code to be provided in a wide array of circumstances--which is the whole crux of this iPhone issue and the SWsoft whining a few days ago, and the Webcore issue a few months back. These are all LGPL licenses involving source code releases.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Comboman]

If you don't agree with what it "stands for", here is a real simple solution, DON'T BUY ONE!

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!

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[teknopurge]

You're wrong.

The boxes are very much a part of their infrastructure. They are designed to work with a single provider.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[blankaBrew]

The FSF is starting to sound a lot like M$. Unsupported and undocumented software/license threats.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[bentcd]

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. Unless you're preaching anarchy, then this is exactly what freedom is: it takes power away from those who would otherwise rule and gives it to those who would have been ruled. This is, in a nutshell, what is meant by "free software" etc.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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 borderline close to having monopoly influence for portable digital music players, but has never been convicted any such action. When and if Apple is declared a monopoly, then looking into how their monopoly is being leveraged makes sense. The verdict is still out on if they have any monopoly influence to abuse.

After all, if we never buy software, or music, or use the internet, these groups have no influence over our lives and we should really just mind our own business.

There are a lot of factors that make it impractical to do your job without a computer that runs Windows. Moving to a different city to get provider other than AT&T is impractical. The RIAA as assured that only their music is available in many stores and only their music is played on the radio in most locations. They've created a situation where performers have to sign with them to have a reasonable chance of reaching an audience.

So what is stopping you from buying a Blackberry? What is stopping you from buying a MP3 player from someone else? What artificial barriers are you worried are undermining the free market as is happening with all the other companies you listed?

the iPhone is an ominous trend because it signifies a future where general purpose computers don't exist, and instead you have specialized appliances which only work on proprietary networks.

I disagree. There is a move towards more specialized computers (game console, smart phone, voip box, pvr, etc.). That is normal. Generally things diverge then consolidate then diverge then consolidate in a cyclical fashion. Trying to stop people from creating new things, whether more specialized or more flexible will undermine the free market and slow innovation significantly.

I agree we need to either equally subsidize all network providers or force the existing ones to behave neutrally, but that has nothing to do with the devices that run on the network or trying to dictate what they do.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[statusbar]

As much as I want an iPhone myself, the iPhone IS using LGPL'd software (at least KHTML) and Apple IS restricting me from upgrading/modifying the LGPL'd portion.

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:How isn't this FUD?

[mgabrys_sf]

That's interesting. That falls on the heels of reports that AT&T was doing reconfigs to up speeds in various areas and even Trio customers with EDGE getting better bandwidth. Of course upgrades like these couldn't possibly be connected to any crunchy breaky noises that came shortly afterwards as the network collapsed.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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?

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?

Why don't companies that wish to sell 'locked-down' or 'dumbed-down' inferior products write code from scratch?

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?

[LKM]

I don't see how this FSF announcement challenges Jobs' comment. Which is, by the way, not entirely ridiculous, either.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[LKM]

That makes no sense. At all. "Free software" doesn't stand for anything. It has a license, and if Apple adheres to the license - and until there is reasonable suspicion that they don't, I'll go with that - there's no reason for them not to use free software. Most people involved in free software are happy to see their software used, as long as the license is respected.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[a.d.trick]

I can't speak for the GP, but I haven't bought an iPhone; however, that's not a sufficient solution. The problem is that while you and I may be educated enough to know the issue at stake here, most consumers are not.

If you will forgive an analogy, the situation here bears some relation to the situation in the food and drug industry. There are very few people who are willing to educate themselves enough so they can make reasonable food choices. Therefore, the Americans (I don't know what we Canadians do) have the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that monitors the products that corporations want to put on the market to make sure that they are reasonably safe. Had this been left to regular people to sort out, the market would be full of all sorts of crazy chemicals (worse that it already is!) because regular people don't understand their long term effects.

I don't think it would be entirely out-of-place to say that the FSF is somewhat like the FDA; only what the FDA does for foods and drugs, the FSF does for software. The FSF is there to protect users to make sure that they get the freedoms that they ought to have. You may not agree with what freedoms those are or why their important; and I can't convince you either. Eben Moglen gave an awfully good lecture that might explain their point of view.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Hal_Porter]

You're statement about cell towers is correct, but it's the 25 feet tracking that I'm concerned about. Most users actually don't know they are being tracked whenever they carry their phone.

If you wrap you cellphone with an inch or so of tinfoil and ground that, the resulting Faraday Cage should protect you from being tracked. Note that just turning it off is not enough, since most cellphones can wake up from power off, turn on the radio and give away your location. Since (as you point out) you can't review the code, you can't prove this doesn't happen. Even removing the main battery is not sufficient, since most of them have a small backup battery soldered to the PCB.

No, if you care about privacy you need to fashion a faraday cage around your cellphone. You should also get rid of all credit cards and avoid visiting dentists who may implant tracking devices into your teeth. Home dentistry is easy once you get used to it though, if rather painful.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

That Jobs quote is the main reason why I'm sticking with my Windows Mobile 5 phone (love my Cingular 8125/HTC Wizard), and why I'll probably upgrade to a Windows Mobile 6 phone (i.e. the HTC Kaiser) around the end of the year.

Good job, Jobs, pushing me more towards Microsoft than I've ever been.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Sparr0]

"Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Lemmy Caution]

Extending freedom requires a restriction on the ability to restrict freedom. What could be clearer?

Is a schoolyard "freer" if a bully is allowed to beat up whomever they wish?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[djh101010]

I think most cell phone users are aware of the fact that they can be tracked by their phone.

You're statement about cell towers is correct, but it's the 25 feet tracking that I'm concerned about. Most users actually don't know they are being tracked whenever they carry their phone.
You know what? My travel pattern just isn't that interesting, and neither I suspect, is yours. Now, to the guy who is itching to reply saying "I have nothing to hide so I don't mind this" is my point, no, that's _not_ my point. What I'm saying, is that if you really think that just because something _can_ be done, it _is_ being done, well, you're just not that interesting. Sorry. Nobody cares if you went to the beer store on thursday instead of wednesday this week. Unless you're an active suspect that is specifically being watched, there's no reason to watch you. And, if you are an active suspect, you're being watched anyway. So this is a null problem.

This is kind of like getting all worked up that your employer keeps web proxy logs, and email logs, of what you do when they're paying you to be working. Yeah, they do. And nobody cares unless you're in trouble anyway.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[OG]

There's a difference between a device and software. If Apple uses and modifies LGPL code, and then they put the code back into the wild, it can still be used for building other devices. They have every right to control what software actually makes it onto the device they issue. They're the ones who have to support the device. They're the ones building a reputation on the fact that the device "just works" (much like TiVo). If they return source code for the software back to the community to be used on other devices, then I think they've fulfilled their obligation.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Eunuchswear]

So if Jobs is right how come there are other phones that let you install software? Other phones that will work on the same network as AT&T's EDGE network?

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:How isn't this FUD?

[SkyDude]

Most users actually don't know they are being tracked whenever they carry their phone.

Thank gawd someone cares about me..........

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Shakrai]

"You don't want your phone to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs.

Jobs' statement is FUD and needs to be challenged.

Indeed. If you can "gum up" a providers network with a crummy application then the provider needs to take a serious look at the design of their network.

Seriously. Can I write an application for my PC that can take down Roadrunner's network? Didn't think so....

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[westlake]

In the old days, you could trust that your electronic gadgets did nothing but what you expected. They were simple hardware, with little software. You could open the box and figure out what it did. Now days, with software dominating the technology in gadgets, I prefer that software to be open. Who's to say that your iPhone isn't spying on you? When you run Vista, you must agree to trust Microsoft with all kinds of personal information. My cell phone service provider knows where I am 24/7, and I'm not allowed to turn that feature off.

The old days died in the eighties with Heathkit.

The end was in sight when the transistor entered consumer electronics in the late fifties.

The phone company has known where you are since 1876. The phone company has to know who to bill, the phone company has to know how to route a call.

Any form of communication implies a certain loss of privacy - of anonymity.

Yeah, I wanna see the code.

If you don't trust Apple, why should you trust Apple's release of Apple's code?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[teknopurge]

The fact that people own guns does not make them killers. It doesn't mean there should be no rules/laws for gun control.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Shakrai]

Your cell phone provider NEEDS to know where you are at least within the radius of a cell tower. That's kind of how it works.

Not at all times they don't. GSM uses "location areas" specifically to avoid the phone having to contact the network every single time that it moves between cell sites. Depending on the lay of the land and the number of users in a given area this location area may be as large as an entire city and suburbs (my entire region has the same location area code on T-Mo's network) or it may be as small as a single city block in a more urban area.

But the point is, that at least with GSM they do not even need to know which specific site your phone is listening to when it is idle. When it's active and on a call is another matter altogether.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Shakrai]

By law in the US, your cell phone provider needs to know where you are within about 25 feet.

Actually, the law is that they need to be able to locate you to within 25 meters and only when you place a call to 911. There is no law requiring them to keep tabs on your location at any other time.

Of course that doesn't mean that they aren't doing this. But point me to a law or regulation that requires them to do so.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_mischief]

The releasing of source code for a device that must have its software vetted by the phone companies does not mean the owners of a phone will be allowed to run modified versions on their phones when attached to the network. It's entirely possible to release source code to the public, and also make sure that only cryptographically signed versions of that source work in a particular situation.

Let's face it, the Tivo effect has to be allowed here, because Apple didn't release a product with code that had been licensed under a license released the same day as the product. The only versions of the GPL in force on any of the software they used would be 2 and maybe 1. If GPLv3 was released the same day as the product, there's no way the already extant code they used at the time of the release was licensed exclusively under GPLv3.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Shakrai]

your cell phone is talking to 2-4 cell phone towers to ensure it has the best signal

Actually, in GSM, your cell phone is listening to anywhere from 1 to 6 sites, not talking to them. An idle GSM phone will periodically send a keep alive signal to whichever tower it is listening to at the time. During a call a GSM phone only talks to one site at a time. It monitors the signal levels of nearby sites and will request a handoff based on that (or if instructed to handoff by the network). CDMA phones will listen to and talk with multiple sites at the same time (it's called soft handoff) though.

calculating your round time trip to each tower

This is how GSM phones are located for E-911. But the phone isn't actively "talking" to the other sites used for triangulation. And in a rural area there may very well only be one cell site within range of your phone. In this scenario a GSM network will not be able to locate your exact position -- they will only be able to narrow you down to the sector of the cell site and your approximate distance from the site.

None of this applies to CDMA networks. The very nature of CDMA makes it damn near impossible to locate using triangulation. That's why the CDMA providers opted for an AGPS solution. At no point did the Government require them to use GPS. It was just the easiest solution to the problem of locating people for E-911.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[jythie]

"Device" is the key word here. You are free to take apple's GPLed software that they modified and continue to modify it. You can even build your own device and install the software on it if you like.

You are not free to take a closed device designed to run on a closed network and change the software it is running.

GPL should cover software... it is disturbing that it also tries to change the behavior of the specific hardware that the software runs on.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is an artificial restraint attempting to counter-balance other artificial restraints such as copyrights, patents, and the DMCA.

In a free-market society, reverse-engineering everything and anything would run rampant.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[swillden]

convert the "unbelievers" by whatever means necessary

Assuming you consider polite public criticism "whatever means necessary".

If you don't like what the FSF has to say, ignore them. Heck, they're even easier to ignore than Apple is, since the FSF doesn't have Apple's advertising budget.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

s/Kazinsky/Kaczynski/

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the changes to WebKit/WebCore to support the new Safari?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Choad Namath]

How does locking something to your network make it part of your infrastructure? End user interfaces connect to the infrastructure, they're not a part of it. Is my driveway part of the transportation infrastructure? How about my garage?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mrchaotica]

Why does that bother some people?

Because the iPhone (allegedly) uses GPL code, you dumbfuck!

People license their code under the GPL specifically because they care about the openness. Jobs is welcome to make a devices as closed and proprietary as he wants, but he shouldn't be allowed to use GPL code to do it, as it is contrary to the license (and by extension, contrary to the wishes of the copyright holders). What's so hard to understand about that?

If the iPhone were entirely proprietary, neither I nor the FSF would be complaining (at least not in this manner).

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[slash-tard]

The FSF and RMS types have hijacked "free" to mean something else in this context. BSD is free, GPL isnt, at least my most peoples definition on the word.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[DarthTibault]

The Latin "libre" Last time I checked "libre" was French... The Latin word is "liber".

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[encoderer]

That would only work if EVERYONE had an iPhone. If I were you, and I wanted to write that app, I'd just support Windows Mobile and whatever OS that blackberrys and palms run (do palms still run palmOS? for some reason i think i heard they abandoned it..). That would be loads more accurate than an iPhone-based solution.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mrchaotica]

What I'm saying, is that if you really think that just because something _can_ be done, it _is_ being done, well, you're just not that interesting. Sorry. Nobody cares if you went to the beer store on thursday instead of wednesday this week. Unless you're an active suspect that is specifically being watched, there's no reason to watch you. And, if you are an active suspect, you're being watched anyway. So this is a null problem.

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:How isn't this FUD?

[antifoidulus]

Because the iPhone (allegedly) uses GPL code, you dumbfuck!

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:How isn't this FUD?

[mmeister]

Agreed. GPL is much more dictatorial than almost any other open-source license. Much like a certain President, their attitude is "You're either with us or you're our enemy [sic]".

FSF makes a groundless claim that Apple must be using GPL software. I'm sure Apple takes extreme care to avoid it (much as I do myself). Apple has given plenty back to the open-source community (Darwin, KHTML) without being forced to do so via the dictators of GPL licensing. I am more than willing to give back to the community, but much as I don't like my gov't telling me how I should think, I don't like the FSF telling me how I should code.

The goal of GPL license appears to be to pollute all code with it and thus "force" it to be disclosed. Because of the viral nature of GPL, it is best avoided for anyone but the purists who live and breathe nothing but GPL. And I am tired of the FSF folks thinking that my refusing to join their particular religion means I'm somehow evil.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly was Apple looking for, when it chose to start with GPL code to develop a locked-down, proprietary device?

I believe this is why the started w/ BSD code, which is more free than GPL code in some ways. Personally, when I saw this article I thought "Great, more MS FUD". Why? Because one of the biggest concerns companies have using GPL software is that their software might somehow get "infected" by the GPL and wind up covered by the GPL (The GPL IS meant to be viral). At my previous company I had to get our lawyer to sign off that checking our code into CVS would not require us to release it under the GPL (a concern originally raised by a developer).

So the fact a big company like Apple might get into trouble by including GPL software on their gadget? Why, other folks would be crazy to go near that stuff. Nope, this article is insane FUD to discourage folks from using anything GPL'd. Where is the article that Windows is in trouble because the used "Free" software to build their network stack so long ago?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPhone does not contain any GPL code.

You're wrong. If you actually have an iPhone look under Settings -> About. There's a list of software licenses for the libraries that are included with the phone. That list includes both the GPL and the LGPL.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[teknopurge]

Yes - they both are.

If there were no roads, would you still need a driveway/garage for your cars? It may be indirect in your analogy, but the driveway it a by product of roads. Back when there were just horses, do you think someone would ride the horse around to the drive just to approach the house from one direction???

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Eunuchswear]

And Jobs is like Hitler in taking guns away from the iPhone users while allowing the Nokia (notice it starts with a "N") brownshirts to arm themselves to the teeth.

So that's this thread completley Godwinized

By the way, this is slashdot - you're supposed to use a stupid meaningless car analogy, not a stupid meaningless gun control analogy.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[L7_]

I'd consider buying the iPhone if it were a bit smaller. I don't think it will fit in my pocket with my keys very well.

Just to clarify something, you might want to check out the blogs that compare its size to other phones. I replaced my Motorola SLVR with an iPhone and there is no difference in thickness, only the iPhone is about an inch (2 cm) wider than the SLVR. They are both 'candybar' phones, no flip, so it is an apt comparison.

It fits in my pocket with my money clip and keys, with no bulge. However, I don't wear tight emo pants. It also fits very nice in my front shirt pocket.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[disasm]

Off Topic, but I have to say that is the best sig I've ever seen.

Sam

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mrchaotica]

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

I hate to break it to you, but nobody ever claimed that in the first place (except you, in your sig). Stop insulting people by putting words it their mouths, calling them "zealots," etc., and maybe they'll stop insulting you in return. When you start out by sounding like an ass, you should expect to get treated like one!

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[TheSkyIsPurple]

> Why does Apple hate DRM on audio, but not on Software or Video?

Huh? Video from the Apple Store is DRM'd.

In fact, you can't even write a third party player that plays them... third party apps don't have access to the keys required to decode the stream, so you can't use the quicktime libraries to play them. Nor is there any support for trying.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Trillan]

That could easily be libstdc++, which is GPL but without the copyleft. Or does it say which libraries are GPL?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[smilindog2000]

Thanks. I love that Franklin quote. Someone suggested the other day that I put "-- Ben Franklin" on the end of my sig, but I thought the quote was so well known that it wasn't needed.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[7-Vodka]

Wow! what a great way to spin the GPL2 into the dirt.

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 freedoms than she would have without it. All she has to do is allow her modifications to give USERS all the rights that she had as a USER, nothing more nothing less.

It's a user-centric license and protects ALL freedoms of the user.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[0racle]

If 'they' wanted to make you look like a target they would. No one cares about you and nothing you do is so outrageous that people would remember you were in one city while a bomb went off in another. If they wanted to make you interesting, they'd just frame you, they wouldn't wait for you do do something.

Take your meds and you'll be able to relax.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Lars T.]

This is exactly what I'd expect from the FSF.

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;

"You don't want your phone to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up." Jobs' statement is FUD and needs to be challenged. By unrelated FUD? Yeah, that's what we expect from the FSF. They have become the Greenpeace of Free Software.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Overzeetop]

Look, all we really want to know is if you have stopped beating your wife. ;-)

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[ShamrawkNRoll88]

Yes exactly video on the Apple Store is DRM'd. Thats why he asked why apple doesn't hate DRM on video, but they do hate it on Audio.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[w3woody]

Jobs' statement is FUD and needs to be challenged.

But does it do anyone any damned good if you "challenge" FUD with unfounded accusations borderlining on slander?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Yvan256]

My cellphone has voice commands, and whenever I ask it "where am I?" it replies "You are here."

Kinda scary that it knows exactly where I am.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[ChaosDiscord]

Unless you're an active suspect that is specifically being watched, there's no reason to watch you.

Thank god the government and businesses are perfectly honest. Law enforcement officials never abuse access to such data for personal use. The government never uses data originally collected for innocent purposes then uses it to round up everyone of a particular ethnicity. Private investigators and stalkers never engage in pretexting and other forms of fraud to get access to phone records and other private information.

Abuse of data is a matter of when, not if. My money is on it only being a matter of time before we discover that a murder victim was stalked by someone with access to the victim's cell phone location data. By erring on the side of limiting how much data you give businesses or government, you limit the possible damage if you're the unlucky person who gets incorrectly targeted.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Noah Adler]

The term doesn't directly refer to any person's freedoms with the software. It doesn't mean 'software to which you are free to do anything you choose' and it doesn't mean 'software which you receive for no monetary exchange.' It derives from the fact that the software itself is free (libre), the same way a person in our society should reasonably be free from slavery. The GPL's purpose is to ensure that no one can 'enslave' the software, making sure it remains free.

Evidently the term 'free software' may not be appropriately self-descriptive, so perhaps a better name should've been given, but the software's own freedom is what is meant.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

No it's not. "Socialized" does not require Socialism. It doesn't mean "public ownership." It means "group ownership."

What is clear is that both are more free than closed-source code. For certain groups. The groups whose freedoms you take away in the exchange ARE NOT CRIMINALS OR DESPOTS, which has been the whole fracking point.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

Is a schoolyard "freer" if a bully is allowed to beat up whomever they wish? This is the whole goddamned point. People who choose to use an alternative license are not schoolyard bullies. They are not evil, stupid, or greedy. They made something with their own labor and they don't want it GPL'd. They didn't use any GPL code, and the GPL license is NOT THE ONLY WAY, as the RMS zealots would insist. I am pointing out that there is a place for more than the GPL in the world, something about 35 of you can't get through your thick skulls.

Is the schoolyard "freer" if all the fourth graders have to share their entire lunches with anyone who asked, regardless of how much (if anything) they've been "given" by other grades?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

Software doesn't have rights, but let's pretend it does. Where's its right to privacy? Where's its right to choose who gets to use it?

Are you saying my car is enslaved to me because I don't let anyone else use it or even look inside? Is my daughter's private journal enslaved to her because no one in the world has access to it? Is my art gallery enslaved because I only let certain people come in, under certain terms, to enjoy it?

The GPL is just another forced set of shackles. It is not necessarily superior to have software that cannot be "enslaved" just because it sounds like a good human analogy. GPL should never be the only software license in the world, because the number of things it prevents developers from doing is far too great.

If people followed this model, there'd be no privacy at all. Everything you do would have to be perfectly transparent, available to anyone, anytime. People aren't comfortable with that for themselves, so they shouldn't be forced to do the same with their software.

There's a place for the GPL, and it's perfectly fine for GPL software to have the requirements that it does. But it's not universally the best for everyone, it's not perfect, and it's not superior to all other licenses to the point where they should all switch to the GPL. That's all I've been saying from the beginning.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

he minute you turn into a developer and distributor, that's the first time you even have to accept the license! Nonsense. The license is part of the distribution. You have to accept the license to use the software at all, because the developer is sharing the code under that license and under that license alone. What you mean to say is that when you become a distributor is the first time you can potentially violate the license's terms.

I agree that it's about freedoms of the *user*. But you seem to forget that developers aren't criminals whose rights should be taken away. If you replaced all the software licenses in the world with just the GPL, it would not make things more "free." It would completely take away the possibility for developers to control their own code and set the terms for their own work. If you don't use GPL code, you shouldn't be forced to GPL yours, and that's what abolishing these other, supposedly "less free," licenses would accomplish.

At least you're not trying to claim that the GPL is "fair." Fair would involve sharing in kind and require contributions based on the use and benefit of GPL code used. There'd be zero fairness in the GPL for anyone who didn't borrow any "free" GPL code. The GPL shouldn't be pushed on everyone to the exclusion of other licenses. It's really not a difficult concept.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually telecoms are a regulated monopoly. They are granted access to public airwaves and in return have to promote the public good in their use of same. So the network already belongs to the users, and phone companies are only allowed to use their equipment in ways that we, the people, do approve. If a good case could be made that phones had to be open, there is no reason precluding, and every precedent in favor of, doing just that.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Insightful"? First, your opening statement is flamebait. Then you seem to think that Free Software should care about Open Source. Thats in the same direction, although not of the same magnitude, as saying, "there are a lot of people, including people who've made valuable contributions to Microsoft, who don't." Sorry, but duh!

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Sorry, but if you think "a few GPL and LGPL" equates to "includes some LGPL", you've got a world of hurt in terms of legal liability just waiting to happen to you. Talk to a lawyer before you do *anything* else, because your level of confusion could be dangerous.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"They have every right to control what software actually makes it onto the device they issue. They're the ones who have to support the device. "

I don't think the word "right" means what you seem to think it does. Copyright, for instance, isn't a "right" but a privilege that is implemented as part of a social experiment. In terms of support, I don't think anyone would disagree that if I modify my calendar program, then I void any support for the *modified* program. However, it would seem to me to be against the public interest to actually prohibit modifications.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[nanosquid]

Apple didn't start with GPL code at all--they started with BSD and proprietary licensed code,

Actually, development of the iPhone almost certainly involved a lot of GPL'ed code (including gcc); they may simply have avoided shipping it.

The LGPL isn't anti-proprietary, anti-lockdown, or anti-anti-freedom.

Neither is the GPL.

Either way, the LGPL code in the iPhone is just as carefully contained as it is on current Macs

The LGPL requires that people can replace the LGPL'ed library with their own version. So, if KHTML is on the iPhone, Apple needs to make it possible to install a new, user-compiled version of KHTML.

So, Apple, where is the source code to the version of KHTML that runs on the iPhone, how do I compile it, and how do I install the modified version on the iPhone?

(Of course, once I can compile and install a modified KHTML, I effectively can program the iPhone in any way I choose.)

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"You are not free to take a closed device designed to run on a closed network and change the software it is running." First, the network runs on a public resource (hence the requirement for an FCC license). Second, the issue of "closing" a device isn't clearcut. Obviously I can take the damn thing apart, or use it as a paperweight, or whatever. So the question becomes (and as to this I haven't a clue), is operating my own equipment on a public network that operates over public airwaves a problem? How? What gives Apple the "right" to say no? If I could modify an iPhone and use it on Sprint, shouldn't I be able to?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

The boxes are very much a part of their infrastructure. They are designed to work with a single provider.

It doesn't matter whose infrastructure it is connected to. Either you own the box/phone or the provider owns it. If you own the box, you can do whatever you please with it. If the provider doesn't like how _your_ equipment is interacting then they can disconnect you from _their_ network (ie, deny you the right to broadcast on airwaves licensed to them only).

Now if my understanding is correct, the iPhone is not rented, not leased, but purchased. The iPhone at that point is the property of the individual who bought it, not AT&T.

Amazing how the right sort of shiny toys, be they game consoles or movies or phones make some people completely overlook such a simple thing as the concept of private property.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Methinks that the "wide array of circumstances" under which the LGPL "requires source code to be provided" has to do with just that one situation in which the code linking to the LGPL-ed code is derivative.

paragraph 5 of the LGPL:
A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

That analogy made no sense whatsoever.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"You never had the freedom to run arbitrary software on a terminal device that forms part of a mobile phone provider's network."

Sorry, but actually yes you do, unless by "arbitrary" you mean malicious.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

it doesnt matter how many license sections require it, it matters how many programming situations do.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Indeed, it is dictating what you can do with your own work, iff you link to GPLed or derive from LGPLed code. What part of "don't steal" don't you understand? Are you really arrogant enough to say, "hey! I want your code! but i don't want to have to pay attention to your license!"

The bottomline is that your own code is your own code just as long as it is independent. You want to claim independence, then be independent. You want to merge, then accept the license you are merging with...

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Lars T.]

The FSF has not made any accusations... merely speculated on the impact of GPL3 on future locked-down devices. I don't think Apple is in violation of any licenses, GPL or LGPL. The issue is about intent and posturing - the FSF has gained publicity by seemingly aligning itself with a commercially successful product - the iPhone. By stating that it is a crippled device, they have said it is anti-GPL in spirit.

Smart way for the FSF to get mindshare in the marketplace, is the way I see it. How is it smart for the main proponents of GPL3 to admit what others (like Linus Torvalds) have already said: that GPL3 is a bad idea and nobody is going to use it?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[bheer]

First, your opening statement is flamebait.

Only to RMS's ass-kissers, and I'm happy they consider it so.

Then you seem to think that Free Software should care about Open Source.

Yes, they should, because without the pragmatism of the Open-Source community, RMS would be stuck with v0.2.0 of Hurd. He is an ideologue who has no idea of how to ship a platform people actually want to use, and further is okay with the idea of accepting inferior software because it is "ideologically correct". As an engineer, I find that offensive.

Further, for all of the FSF's honking about "user rights", they forget that many of their users are developers, and they have special needs. Instead the FSF has basically said "fuck you, we're coming after you" to organizations they decided they didn't like, such as Tivo. The excuse is that Tivo can always fork. Yep, fracturing the community because of your ideological needs is a smart move all right.

Were alternate approaches possible? Sure they were. Any half-competent IP lawyer will tell you that grace periods could be defined in the license. Existing practices could be grandfathered in, or deprecated. Instead we have this amazing mess where mixing GPL2 and 3 is impossible, thus ensuring that companies using diverse upstream providers cannot adopt the GPL3 incrementally, and will end up making some IP attorneys pretty rich as they figure out the right thing to do (i.e., stay with v2 or go with v3).

For anyone who knows RMS this behavior of the FSF is instantly recognizable: this is the GNU Emacs vs XEmacs dick-waving contest all over again, in a bigger arena.

Thats in the same direction, although not of the same magnitude, as saying, "there are a lot of people, including people who've made valuable contributions to Microsoft, who don't." Sorry, but duh!

I'm sorry, but did you have a point there, or was that merely verbal diarrhoea? Cheers.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[rainman_bc]

"Unless you're an active suspect that is specifically being watched, there's no reason to watch you."

What about laws like the one where US citizens can't travel to Cuba. IMO being tracked bakes laws like that enforceable. What if they know the address of a pot dealer, and you guy buy some pot? There's all kinds of uses for this technology in law enforcement.

If you look deep into the law books, we can all be thrown in jail for something.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

FSF makes a groundless claim that Apple must be using GPL software.

No, the article points out that GPLed software is used, and that the move to GPL v3 could be a problem. Nowhere is it stated that any current code, which would be version 2, is a problem. The article is about the future impact of version three on devices that want to be closed.

In terms of rejecting the GPL making you "evil", I think that is an exaggeration. I don't think that everyone was "evil" when slavery was legal, and I don't think all men where evil when their wives were legally considered chattel property. However, as our culture evolves some do get left behind. That doesn't make you "evil", just "backwards", from my point of view.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

When Solaris is GPLed I can continue doing everything I do with GNU/Solaris. The kernel is a plug-and-play replaceable piece of code. Replacing the entire gnu tool-chain would be problematic, to say nothing of all the applications. I suspect that a lot of the noise is really related to Linus becoming redundant.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the bottom line. The bottom line is that the GPL wants all software to be GPL'd, period, and it's not right.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[larzluv]

"I will not feed the trolls... I will NOT feed the trolls..."

Ah, but assuming you're being some-sort of sincere here...

Let's use your analogy. I'll clean it up for you:

Are we, The Users, the players in a schoolyard, "freer" if a bully, A Corporation, is allowed to beat up upon us by locking us out of the software/devices we purchased from them?

You tell me. (My answer would be, uh... "no"...)

The GPL is about YOUR freedom. MY freedom. NOT Apple's, Microsoft's, whatever able-to-take-care-of-themselves entity you, and for-some-unknown-reason flipped-out apologists like you, "defend".

Even going with your ill-chosen perspective of is there a state of "freer" in a world that would be dominated by the GPL, well, let's see...

Proprietary software: the few who own/work at The Company have more freedom than the vast majority, the hundreds, thousands, (hopefully) millions of Users. The majority's freedoms are stifled by the few.

GPL'd software: the few who own/work at The Company have a (perceived) lack of freedom in that they have to allow us access to the whole device/software they sold us, including the ability to change, upgrade, repair, whatever, it. That annoying little "car with a welded shut versus not welded shut engine compartment" analogy comes to mind. The vast majority, the hundreds, thousands, (hopefully) millions of Users now have more freedom, though the few now face some (perceived) limitations.

You tell me: which system has a generally higher freedom quotient...?

-Larz

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[jythie]

I will agree that you should be able to modify your phone to run on Sprint's network (assuming it is the same protocol), but these networks are only 'kinda' public.

They are a public trust, but in order to gain access to them you have to have your equipment and software stack reasonably validated to make sure they won't mess up the network for other uses. This gets into the tricky issue of 'rights of the individual' vs 'rights of the group', but also quickly gets into the other sticky area, 'responsibilities of the individual'.

An older example: people keep bringing up how evil the phone companies used to be in that they did not allow other phones or answering machines etc to connect to the phone system. It seems like a silly complaint now since we look around and see all sorts of 3rd party phones. What people don't stop to realize is that the phone companies had a good ligitiment reason to not want to worry about 3rd party devices plugging into a rather simple switched network where one poorly designed unit could ruin service for thousands of people. Stability was a real issue at the time. The solution? Modern phone equipment is validated to make sure it is safe to use on the public networks.

Anyone _can_ go through this validation, but it takes the time, energy, and resources of a validation company to do so it is a little outside the price range of the average hobbyist. While this sounds horrible for the 'little' guy, believe me, you don't want any schmuck hooking up their equipment to a network you depend on.

Now, in modern days, the phone network also has more safties built into it. This took time and money, and probably could have killed a young industry (safely supporting any random 3rd party on critical networks is expensive).

So back towards responsibility.... ok, people want to fiddle with their iPhones. But how many of then want to deal with the consequences of some malformed packet they send out knocking people off the cell network. Apple was underwritten so they have some legal coverage and insurance against this happening.. but some random person? Those kinds of fines can ruin you, and eris forbid you knock out an emergency service call and someone ends up dead.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[larzluv]

While the slant of /. is generally one of "we like the GPL and what it stands for", I must say...

[1] Most posts by pro-GPL'ers seem to be attempts to enlighten and/or correct misinterpretations/mis-characterizations. There are fanboys of ever strip, to be sure, but most pro-GPL folk seem less zealot-like and simply more annoyed by the FUD'ers.

[2] Most posts decrying the GPL generally fall in to the unhinged category for me: it's as if it's the most detrimental threat to capitalism since...nothing, really, but they're out there!


I mean, am I living the past many years in some sort of poorly written Twilight Zone episode? The fearful, nut-job hoards are actually the anti-GPL peeps, who then yell as loud as possible, at every chance, spin the genuine FUD, get downright rude, name-call, ridiculously exaggerate, post false dilemmas, and then wrap up every post with such epithets as "FSF zealots".

Did we accidentally piss in their cornflakes? Is it penis-envy?

Or am I just "too naive/jaded to see 'the truth'"??

I don't believe so, if for no other reason than they never seem to provide evidence, genuine counter-argument, and/or honestly say JUST WHAT PROBLEM(S) THEY HAVE WITH A WORLD WERE THEY WOULD HAVE MORE FREEDOM WITH THEIR DEVICES/SOFTWARE...

Also, since their argument generally hinges on the limits the GPL forces upon poor, little, defenseless software/device companies... you know, the ones that are somehow magically forced to base their projects upon GPL code, versus do it the old fashioned way: keep reinventing the wheel in-house.

If my tinfoil hat weren't in the shop, I'd swear most of them are on the Microsoft dole... ;)


Sincerely,
Confused (AKA: Larz)

--

But, specifically to this post: this is tiredly disingenuous... please explain to all of us what's wrong with requesting, wishing, wanting a company that makes a product we want to be just a bit better is "a bad thing"? "Unreasonable"? "Ridiculous"? Indeed, if I have not the need, if another product is more to my liking, if a different one is more in my budget - if any at all ever are - I, of course, am free to vote with my wallet.

But that wouldn't stop me from dreaming a little dream...

Am I to believe you think it right and true that I don't have a "right" do to so? To wish companies would become any sort of Corporate Citizen?

The statement you make, Sir, is void of merit.

The argument isn't that "we" have a problem with those who buy a device because it's "good enough" for them. (And/or they are willing to shrug their shoulders and make do. This is basically the way I am about my TiVo's...) It's that we'd like more from the devices/software companies make. And most importantly for the software/devices WE buy (or at least dream of purchasing).

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[larzluv]

Granted there may be some things I would like it to do that it won't. Buy something else then.

Like what? Only Apple makes an iPhone. If I like 60-99.999999843% of how it works, I have no right to wish it either did better, and/or that I had the ability/right to change it myself? (Or, to apply a patch made by someone who knows more/better than I.)

What if I want to upgrade it (in way[s] Apple doesn't explicitly provide)? Repair, replace, etc.? WHAT IF, YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, I'D LIKE TO SEVERELY MODIFY IT TO A NEW FUNCTIONALITY I DESIRE FOR IT?

By your (il)logic, I have neither the right to do so, nor should I. Actually, you seem to be saying that this current model/scenario is a Great Thing, and The Way Things Should Be. Heaven forbid we, we mere mortals, we Users, have any more freedom than They deem fit...

Obviously no sane, rational person thinks There Should Be A Law! to force companies from opening their proprietary software/devices.

Without open software for these glorious devices that are all programmable computers, we have less freedom with the things we buy. ARTIFICIAL limitations.

The argument is NOT about the rights (nor forced compliance) of The Companies. It's about each of us having the rights to the devices we purchase that are ARTIFICIALLY restricted by their makers.

Why is that position, that ideal, a "bad" thing...?

-Larz

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't sexually abuse male platipi. They are venomous.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

Take a breath buddy. All i said was that Apple is free to make whatever they want and you are free to buy it or not. That's all the further it does. Apple has no obligation or business reason to make the iPhone more open. Last I checked they were selling pretty well.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mr_matticus]

I'm sorry, but if you think "the iPhone includes some LGPL components" and "the iPhone ended up with a few LGPL components" differ in any substantial way, you've got some dangerous reading comprehension problems. After addressing that, you might want to read Section 2 of the LGPL to solve your legal liability confusion.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[The One and Only]

Ted Kazinsky called.

I find that highly unlikely.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[djh101010]

I'm not sure that "it makes it harder for criminals to get away with crime" is a compelling argument to me. Seems to me an equivalent of your argument is "I don't want to put a license plate on my car, because then someone can see who went to a given location". So again, how does this change the status quo? And, please compare and contrast this to the (real) benefit of emergency responders being able to find you when you dial 911 from your cellphone, but don't know where you are? You'd be surprised - I've been on an awful lot of wild goose chases looking for people who called in themselves or for someone else, with a bad location; it's a tremendous waste of time of a lot of people to play "find the accident", and Crom help you if you give up and they turn up dead somewhere the next day. "Well at least their privacy was fully intact..."

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Lemmy Caution]

Um, I was defending the GPL, Angry McYellsalot.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[vakuona]

Your argument is non sequitur.

The airwaves are regulated. The actual devices, anyone can make one. Anyone can make a phone. I hazard there are at least 20-30 companies making mobile phones. Anyone who makes an electronic device can make a phone.

It's like saying cars should be 'open' because they use public roads.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[nanosquid]

How is it smart for the main proponents of GPL3 to admit what others (like Linus Torvalds) have already said: that GPL3 is a bad idea and nobody is going to use it?

Quite to the contrary: this issues demonstrates again that we need GPLv3.

If KHTML were under LGPLv3, then either Apple would have had to make the iPhone user programmable, or they would have had to pay a lot of money to get some other high-quality HTML rendering library. And that's a good thing.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[nanosquid]

You are not free to take a closed device designed to run on a closed network and change the software it is running.

Under GPLv3, you are. And if some vendor is trying to prevent you from doing that, they are in breach of the license, which means they have to stop distributing the software and may face additional liabilities. If the vendor doesn't like that, they shouldn't use the GPLv3 software.

GPL should cover software... it is disturbing that it also tries to change the behavior of the specific hardware that the software runs on.

Apple's licenses specify strong and clear restrictions on what you can and cannot do with their software in relationship to hardware. Why do you think it's wrong when the GPL is doing the same thing?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

At issue isn't whether Apple needs to provide the source code for the rest of iPhone; they clearly don't.

At issue is whether Apple is required by the license to let you compile and install modified versions of KHTML. Under LGPL v2, they may not be. Under LGPL v3, they will be.

What is a derivative work of what is not relevant there. I've never created a derivative work of OS X, yet I'm still bound by the license terms that I licensed OS X under. The LGPL is no different.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[martin-boundary]

It's not just the "free" software that you have to extend that right to, it's your own, independent work in far too many cases.

Not at all. The GPL doesn't say anything about independent work you produce. You can do anything you like with independent work. The GPL covers non-independent work exclusively.

If you start with someone else's GPL code, and you mix in your own code, then your own mixed in code is not independent. And that's all there is to it. It's not difficult to keep your own stuff separate if you want, plenty of companies do it using stub code.

What is true is that inexperienced programmers get caught when they mingle their code with GPL code. But that's a planning problem, not a licensing problem. There are plenty of things inexperienced programmers must learn on the way to becoming proficient, and knowing how to separate your code from someone else's is just one part of it.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[larzluv]

I sincerely apologize for misreading your post. I read it as sarcasm; my bad.

I do, however, request you re-read me as well: I certainly wasn't/am not "angry", nor was I "yelling".

Perhaps you misread me...? ;)


Cheers,
-Larz

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[larzluv]

Oh, pish! I was/am breathing just fine, thank you; sorry if you took me too harshly. (Certainly wasn't intending to be "personal"... :)

There is no legal obligation, but there is a moral one. Yes, I know they're a business, designed to make money. But was Apple really founded to be only that...?

Still, I would never speak that they have no "right" to do as they please. But I don't think it's "right" to artificially lock up a marvelous device. I disagree that opening it up would be fiscal suicide, nor bad business. As they disagree, or at least find it more advantageous to do as they have, obviously my one opinion has no bearing. But that doesn't change what I believe is a valid position: not only would an open software architecture - note I didn't say "open source", although that would be great, too ;) - be morally better, more helpful to humanity, it would make an iPhone many orders of magnitude more popular, influential, and useful.

As for them selling well: I'm sure they'll continue to. Without any serious comparable competition (and I've yet to see any on the horizon), I'm sure demand will outstrip supply (at full capacity, even! ;) for a long time. I hope it does, as I respect the marvel of design, engineering (the autopsy anandtech did shows this amazingly), thought, and even courage.

I just think it could be so much more.

And the "love it or leave it" answer ("Buy something else then.") doesn't seem honest nor reasonable to me. It only works with commodities, and even then, only when there's legitimate competition (in terms of service, price, etc.).

Apple has a (well-deserved, and honest, and respected [by me at least]) monopoly on this object. If I, and others, would like to see changes to it, who else to suggest/complain to other than the manufacturer?

-L

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[arthernan]

Just like there are differences between plausible probable and likely. There is a difference between an acussation and questioning.

Before an acusation can even be made people have to ask questions. Unless you expect to catch every lawbreaker in the act, there has to be some inquiry and/or research. And it does make sense for an open software foundation. To discuss this openly.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[gyrogeerloose]

My cell phone service provider knows where I am 24/7, and I'm not allowed to turn that feature off

You sure about that? I can turn it off in my phone and it's just a POS freebie LG. And if you're really worried about your mobile provider tracking your, you can always just power down the phone.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Lemmy Caution]

Capitalized, bold words and suggestions that one is trolling suggest at least simmering anger, but that might just be a matter of style.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[TheSkyIsPurple]

Yeah, I'm an idiot... read too fast =-)

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have every right to control what software actually makes it onto the device they issue

That right doesn't trump the rights of copyright holders to set license terms. If a software license requires Apple to do things that Apple doesn't want to do, then the only choice they have is not to use the software. Some software license might require Steve Jobs to stand on his head and yodel and that would be legal and enforceable licensing terms. If he doesn't want to do it, the only choice he has is not to license and ship the software.

If they return source code for the software back to the community to be used on other devices, then I think they've fulfilled their obligation.

They have fulfilled their obligation when they have complied with the license. Arguably, they have done that with KHTML (because of some loopholes). If KHTML were under LGPLv3, then returning the code to the community would clearly not be sufficient to fulfill their obligation because the license explicitly requires more.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[larzluv]

Indeed, I assure you... well, as I misinterpreted what you'd written... if it had been as I'd read it, then to suggest it was trolling would have been valid. :) As for the bold/caps: there are few means with HTML to stress things, let alone break up the tone of writing. I try to convey the way I speak (not monotone ;), but can fail regularly... - L

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[mwvdlee]

And you can say that in a number of ways.

FSF chose to imply guilt on Apple.

They could have chosen to imply trust in them.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that is the FSF:s job.

But it's not Steve's job (no pun intended). And iPhone being a commercial product meant to make money for Apple and Cingular has no obligation to actually be an open system. To say so is actually another sort of FUD.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[that this is not und]

You tell me: which system has a generally higher freedom quotient...?

The point is, it's not a black/white either/or proposition.

There are not two monolythic entites, Proprietary and GPL'd.

I happen to be running NetBSD on the computer I am typing this on. I feel in many ways that the centrality of the organization that builds and supports NetBSD renders it far superior to any OS I have encountered based on a GPL-licensed kernel. That was my choice. I was not forced to run either a GPL'd OS or a proprietary one.

Do you understand? Or is there still just 'the boogeyman' and 'the GPL-defined free.'

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[larzluv]

I've never thought, nor would I, that There Can Be Only ONE! (Namely, the GPL.)

"Proprietary" isn't a "boogeyman".

But, for the user, who makes up the vast majority of entities who deals with the software, proprietary software is much less free than GPL'd.

Regarding BSD-stylings: indeed, this is a slightly restricted version of public domain. It's open source. It allows commercial entities to use it as a base, modify it, and then keep their modifications closed. (NOT speaking to you using a BSD system, but in the way others may USE said BSD source.)

But then the freedoms of the users are now, again, limited.

I'm not a zealot, nor crazy: it is honestly a question of who has the (most) freedom, and who "should" have the most freedom.

As someone who purchases/uses/relies on software every day, I certainly value the freedom to not be forced to pay all over again for software I purchased already to get the new version that is now fixed (but mostly the same old program). From a software company's perspective, I understand the beauty of the business plan.

But as the user of said software: it's not fair, it's arbitrarily ridiculous, and it's ridiculously unnecessary.

I don't think most who advocate a GPL-like world dream of "forcing" or "outlawing" other people's freedoms. We simply clearly state one truth about the situation: if you're a user of software, if you rely upon it - as the vast majority of us do - then it works to make it a better situation for us. At the expense of some freedoms a company might value. (But then they never "have" to use GPL-like-licensed code.)

I don't believe GPL advocates are debating "choice", we're debating "what would work in your (as a user) best interest?"

Course, I could be wrong. ;)

For me, at least, that's my view, my point.

Tell me, though: why are those who have a bitter taste regarding the GPL view those who value/prefer it as zealots, or crazy, or trying to force the choice of others, or against other people doing what they prefer, etc.?

Honestly, I'm curious (not trolling, not picking a fight, just honestly curious). As I've said in a prior post, most pro-GPL'ers seem even-keeled. (There are always exceptions, but to me at least, doesn't seem the rule.)

Perhaps some of my posts seemed a bit sarcastic. That's me. Mea culpa. But I'm certainly no "zealot"...


Cheers,
-Larz

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[gig]

It's the definition of FUD.

The only thing that would have made it clearer is if the guy had said "iPhone violates the GPL up to 235 times!"

FSF/GNU/Linux and Microsoft deserve each other, they are two sides of the same coin.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[gig]

> Why does Apple hate DRM on audio, but not on Software or Video?

Because it is not Apple who is pushing the DRM, it is the particular industry behind either music or video, they are separate, and have different expectations and requirements.

Video has always had DRM. iTunes Store video, HD DVD, Blu-Ray, DVD, even VHS has Macrovision. In the movie industry they don't even want to think about not having it yet.

Audio has never had DRM. The CD and compact cassette and vinyl LP have no DRM. The DAT did but there was no consumer audio market in DAT. Even iTunes Store music can be burned to CD to break the DRM so you can make mix discs for a friend. That has always been the case.

So DRM is entrenched deep into video, but it has only ever been at the most paper-thin on audio. EMI only had to take a 1 inch step to drop DRM. The movie companies have a lot further to go.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[gig]

> The FSF has not made any accusations.

If you are the head of the FSF and you get up publicly on the day the iPhone is released and say if there is GPL software in there, there will be hell to pay than that is an implicit accusation and definitive FUD.

It's like if you're a runner and right before the race starts you said I hope that other runner is not using performance-enhancing drugs.

Or if you were a monopolistic software company and you said everyone else is infringing on up to 235 of our patents.

Right here in this thread you have people saying Apple used GPL software those bastards! And these are the very people who should know better. All because the head of FSF shot his mouth off like a know-nothing suit.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[gig]

> If KHTML were under LGPLv3, then either Apple would have had to make the iPhone user programmable,
> or they would have had to pay a lot of money to get some other high-quality HTML rendering library. And that's a good thing.

In the first place, WebKit is not KHTML. It has been an independent project for years now.

In the second place, WebKit replaced Internet Explorer on the Mac. If you think that is not a good thing, then something is wrong with you. If Apple had just bought IE from Microsoft the world would not be a better place, not for Apple, their users, non-Apple users, and not for Web developers certainly.

Finally, the iPhone is user programmable. Everyday people program it with their fingers. That is why it is popular.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[gig]

> So, Apple, where is the source code to the version of KHTML that runs on the iPhone, how do I compile it, and how do I install the modified version on the iPhone?

It's not KHTML, it's WebKit, and that is the rendering engine, not the browser, and the source is "hidden" here:

http://webkit.org/

Cheers.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[nanosquid]

You're missing the point. The intent of the LGPL is that I, as a user, can recompile the code covered by the LGPL and replace the original binary with the recompiled one. That means that I should be able to get the exact code that runs on the iPhone (not just something vaguely related to it), and be able to compile and install it on the iPhone.

As far as I know, the iPhone doesn't allow any third party installation of binaries, so Apple isn't meeting that requirement. They may be able to weasel out of that requirement with the LGPLv2 (even though they know full well that that was the intent), but the LGPLv3 would require them to make this possible.

Apple is clearly in violating of the intent of the LGPL, and they will be in violation of the letter of the LGPL with v3.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[larzluv]

I'm not whining, but curious why this post of mine was mod'd as "troll". Any constructive suggestions for me? I certainly didn't mean to be. (I thought I was making a decent point-or-two... ;) With applicable apologies... :) Larz

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[larzluv]

I'm not whining, but curious why this post of mine was mod'd as "troll". Any constructive suggestions for me? I certainly didn't mean to be. (I thought I was making a decent point-or-two... ;) With applicable apologies, as appropriate... :) Larz

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Ohreally_factor]

Thank you. It seems to be the only way to get a submission accepted these days. However, the quote is real, and it looks, smells, and tastes like a veiled threat to me.

As far as being against the spirit of GPL 2, as a poster above stated and with which you agreed, I guess you are free to put that spin on it. To me, the spirit of GPL 2 is this: You give up a little freedom to gain a lot of benefit. It's an equitable quid pro quo, maybe more than equitable. If the FSF had intended anything more, they would have written it that way, as they have done in GPL 3. In my mind, GPL 2 represents a cooperative anarchist model while GPL 3 represents a top down control marxist/socialist model. But whatever. Use what ever suits you.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Ohreally_factor]

Actually, Linus has made lukewarm noises about the last draft, but has not said that Linux would move to GPL 3. The very fact that Linus is no longer strongly opposed is being hailed as a great victory.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

1) The kernel is GPL, and predates Open Source. So the credit and glory there doesn't distribute quite like you'd rather it did.

2) You say you dislike the ideals, but then don't seem to understand the users vs developer's freedoms argument is about maximizing long term freedom, which by its nature has to be somewhat idealistic.

3) Tivo's behavior was certainly all about leveraging a loophole in GPL2. I can understand phrasing GPL3 to restrict Tivo.

4) Flamebait...?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Ohreally_factor]

After reading some of your other comments, I think we are more in agreement than disagreement. Context is a wonderful thing.

Proprietary, OSS, F/OSS, use whatever license is best for your particular situation. You've said this a few times, and I can roll with that.

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[Ohreally_factor]

OK, just typing out loud here, so bear with me . . . . the iPhone is like a Porsche that doesn't allow you to build a kitchen in the glove compartment (applications), but you can still go to a drive thru (Web Apps), roll down your window and place your order (safari). In addition, it is so insanely easy for anyone to build a drive thru (AJAX) that there is no reason why every restaurant (web site) can't have drive thru windows tailored to the porsche (or any other vehicle, for that matter).

That's not half bad so far . . .

I'm not sure what car or truck the Nokia represents, but whatever car allows you to build a kitchen in the glove compartment, install a swimming pool in the trunk, bolt on square tires to the hubs, add a catheter so you can pee without leaving the driver's seat on those long trips . . .

OK, this analogy now sucks. Anyone else want to try?

Re:How isn't this FUD?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Cars are "open". There is a booming business in after market addons.

GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're using BSD and LGPL licenses, how are they in violation of the GPL license?

Grandstanding.

[jcr]

Apple's work on the Mach kernel for ARM isn't under the GPL, it's under the BSD license. The graphics libraries are their own, and KHTML is available under it's own license. The FSF is trying to pull a Greenpeace-style publicity-grab here.

-jcr

Re:Grandstanding.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

The FSF is trying to pull a Greenpeace-style publicity-grab here.

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:Grandstanding.

[jkrise]

Apple's work on the Mach kernel for ARM isn't under the GPL, it's under the BSD license. The graphics libraries are their own, and KHTML is available under it's own license. The FSF is trying to pull a Greenpeace-style publicity-grab here.

Are you saying there's absoloutely no GPL code... not even GPL2 only code... or even code derived from GPL2 work in the iPhone? That's a very strange view to hold... many seem to agree the 'webkit' was derived from GPL2 or later code.

I think the FSF grabbing publicity is well in order... if Apple goes agains the spirit of the GPL like TiVO, then let the whole world know the facts.

Re:Grandstanding.

[dreamchaser]

You replied to someone with the word 'MacFanboy' in his handle Do you really expect any logical arguements to work? Fanboy = religious zealot. Apple can do no wrong, ever, in this person's eyes.

That being said, I'm not sure whether the FSF has any grounds to make any accusations at all. Rest assured though that if they did, MacFanboys everywhere would find a way to explain/excuse it away.

Re:Grandstanding.

[McDutchie]

You replied to someone with the word 'MacFanboy' in his handle Do you really expect any logical arguements to work?

No, I was replying to jcr's message that started this thread.

Even if it had been 'MacFanboy', I don't see Slashdot nicknames with probable humorous intentions as a reason not to take their comments seriously.

Re:Grandstanding.

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPhone allegedly runs Mac OS X, and it's well known that Mac OS X includes many GPL'ed programs including much of the GNU userspace stuff.
The article states "Operating System", MacOS X - note the "OS". Nothing about "GPL Programs", so yes, the FSF is trying to pull a lame Greenpeace-style publicity-grab here, or he's just absolutely clueless.

Re:Grandstanding.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read & re-read the GGP & can't see any references at all to the debt Apple owes to the FSF. Do you really think such a debt exists?

Re:Grandstanding.

[falcon5768]

there could very well be GPL2 code on it, but license wise thats fine, its GPL3 code that matters and as you know, GPL3 was JUST released the same day as the iPhone.

If that license was retroactive we would be talking about hundreds of thousands of devices having to be called back and opened up, and hundreds of companies ready to hang people by the neck.

Re:Grandstanding.

[TheGreek]

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.

Is that so?

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."

Re:Grandstanding.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Good point. I did mean to qualify, but didn't.

The intent of my point was - FSF wasn't indulging in a greenpeace style sabre rattle. They merely wondered if there was any (L)GPLd software on the iPhone.

Re:Grandstanding.

[TheGreek]

Good point. I did mean to qualify, but didn't.

And now you're trying to weasel.

The intent of my point was - FSF wasn't indulging in a greenpeace style sabre rattle. They merely wondered if there was any (L)GPLd software on the iPhone.

No, if they'd meant "(L)GPL," they would have said "(L)GPL." The press release very plainly did not include "(L)," so it's obvious they're trying to cast suspicion on Apple as being a potential GPL violator.

On a more personal note, I know you like looking at pictures of naked women, so it would be interesting to determine the extent to which you have child pornography on your hard drive. Surely you don't mind if we take a quick look.

Re:Grandstanding.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean a Balmer style publicity grab. Peter "Balmer" Brown makes an accusation that Apple uses GPL code, then implies that they're improperly using it in the iPhone. Sounds like Linux patent infringements to me. Wow, who would have thought we'd see the day that the FSF used the same tactics as micro$oft.

Mr. Brown - put up or shut up. File the suit or quit yapping about it. You're doing an incredible amount of harm.

someone too lazy to log in again

Re:Grandstanding.

[Random832]

Just because there's an article about the FSF & Apple, doesn't mean its endorsed by Apple or the FSF.

No, but the fact that it was copied from the FSF website would seem to at least somewhat imply it is endorsed by the FSF.

Re:Grandstanding.

[FLAGGR]

Actually, no it doesn't. The kernel is part MACH part Apple, none of which is GPL. The low level userspace stuff is BSD. Everything else is mainly Apple. The questionable bit is WebKit, which I believe is LGPL, and either way the code for it is released by Apple.

Re:Grandstanding.

[Goaway]

The iPhone allegedly runs Mac OS X, and it's well known that Mac OS X includes many GPL'ed programs including much of the GNU userspace stuff. Care to point which parts of the GNU userspace stuff those are, then?

Re:Grandstanding.

[McDutchie]

The iPhone allegedly runs Mac OS X, and it's well known that Mac OS X includes many GPL'ed programs including much of the GNU userspace stuff.

Care to point which parts of the GNU userspace stuff those are, then?

Sure, but Slashdot's lameness filter won't let me, so I made a webpage: GNU userspace in Mac OS X. Summary: programs such as cmp, diff, grep, groff, gzip, info, and tar are all GNU versions in the default install of Mac OS X.

Oops, seems I committed the cardinal sin of telling the truth, considering my grandparent comment has been modded down to -1. And now I'm about to do it again!

Re:Grandstanding.

[SanityInAnarchy]

WebKit, which I believe is LGPL, and either way the code for it is released by Apple.

What does Apple releasing it have to do with it?

The reason it's LGPL is it's derived from KHTML. Apple does not have the original copyright, therefore, they are not allowed to re-license it. Of course, the LGPLv2 won't cause problems for them...

Re:Grandstanding.

[Goaway]

Do you really think the iPhone is using cmp, diff, grep, groff, gzip, info or tar? You're really stretching it claiming that "many of these are basic programs without which no UNIX-like OS can function". OS X will not be affected in the slightest by deleting any of those. They're just provided for compatibility with outside UNIX stuff.

Re:Grandstanding.

[Rob Menke]

The iPhone allegedly runs Mac OS X ...

That's wishful thinking from a lot of UNIX hacks hoping to pop open a bourne shell on their phone and hack away. "OS X" and "MacOS X" are two different beasts: the former is the kernel (Xnu) and application libraries (CoreFoundation; Cocoa); the latter is a superset that can be installed on a Macintosh. I'd be surprised if there are any of the aforementioned userland tools on the phone; they are unnecessary for applications to run.

Remember, the damn thing needs space to store music and videos. The designers won't fill up its internal memory with text processing utilities on the off chance that some future application needs 'grep.'

Re:Grandstanding.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

so it's obvious they're trying to cast suspicion on Apple as being a potential GPL violator.

*shrugs* - you're welcome to think 'I wonder if the phone contains GPLd software' == 'GPL violator'. I don't

Re:Grandstanding.

[ir]

The odd thing is why are they using those in the first place? There are BSD versions of all those commands except groff (gzip, at least under OpenBSD, is BSD licensed).

Also, I don't know why they even include BASH, since ZSH is far better and has a non-GPL license.

Re:Grandstanding.

[Goaway]

I guess the GNU versions might have extensions people want? Like bzip2 support in tar? I'm not sure though.

FUD?

[someone300]

I can't see what in the iPhone can be potentially violating the GPL. I thought they released WebKit changes back to the community and as it's LGPL they don't need to release Safari's entire codebase. Despite GPLv3 being released just before this device was released doesn't mean that all the "GPLv2" or "GPLv2 or higher" software was magically turned into "GPLv3 only" software, so they're not required to make it modifiable. Instead, I believe the distributor can decide what license he wants to distribute the software under.

Unfortunate though. I'd love there to be a problem. If they had to release modification docs then it'd be a hacker's dream.

Re:FUD?

[VGPowerlord]

I can't see what in the iPhone can be potentially violating the GPL. I thought they released WebKit changes back to the community and as it's LGPL they don't need to release Safari's entire codebase.

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 Section 4.

Re:FUD?

[JamesRose]

More to the point, unless Apple starting taking that code and made the iphone software with it 3hours before they released the iPhone, NO code in it was GPL v3, the newer versions of that code may be, but most certainly not the actual code that went in, because when that code was taken and reworked, about a year ago, there was no GPL v3 so none of the software they used could possibly be using that license.

Re:FUD?

[bockelboy]

One of the interesting parts of the LGPL that I found out about recently is Section 6. Someone else has linked the text already in this article, so I'll spare you the details.

Basically, it says that the user must be able to replace the current LGPL code with his/her own version and the device must still be operational. So, Apple doesn't need to release Safari's source code (beyond WebKit), but it *does* have to give you the opportunity to replace the WebKit pieces with your custom patches and have them work on the iPhone.

Or so goes one reading of the license. I'm sure Apple's legal dep't has a different reading.

At any rate, it's a huge step backward for a company which touts the power of open source in its OS on its webpage. It's a huge step backward for the company which recently made a tiny step forward in releasing non-DRM'd MP3s from its online store.

In the off chance that Steve Jobs reads this, I *did* buy my Macs almost solely because of the Unix/Open Source underpinnings. Having a closed iPhone is not all that exciting.

Re:FUD?

[someone300]

6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.

Is this the bit you're referring to?
I think this is referring to if you make a new work that is produced from combining statically a library with your work, you can distribute it under your own terms if you allow debugging and modifications. Indeed, the word work seems ambiguous, but with copyright law I think you take the most unrestricted interpretation to be correct if it's ambiguous.

Re:FUD?

[Eunuchswear]

Here we go again:

6 [...]
Also, you must do one of these things:

        * a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
        * b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
        * 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.
        * 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.
        * e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.

For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.
[my emphasis]

I.E. the user must be able to relink the program against a different version of the library - so he can fix bugs in the library, or implement exciting new features like crashing AT&T's EDGE network for example.

GPL3?

[Warbothong]

The Tivo 'saber' is only covered in the GPL3. The iPhone came out on the same day as GPL3, so I seriously doubt there is GPL3-only code in there. The GPL2 doesn't deal with Tivoisation at all, which is why v3 was made. If it turns out there is GPL code in the iPhone Apple just need to distribute some publicly available source, they won't have to change the iPhone in any way.

Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing?

[gnasher719]

Why stop with GPL software? If you suspect, without giving any reason, that Apple might have stolen GPL'd software and is using it in the iPhone without license, then you should suspect that they might have stolen software from anyone else as well. Not that there is any reason for any such suspicion except paranoia, but you can be paranoid as much as you like.

Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing?

[Warbothong]

It violates 235 patents don'tcha know

Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing?

[ducomputergeek]

As part of deal with Gates and company buying 25% of Apple in non-voting shares a few years back, Apple has use of the MS patent library as part of the deal. Technically MS owns the patent to the jogging dial thingy on the iPod too, but since the terms of the deal...

Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing?

[arivanov]

You are mistaking patents for copyright and vice versa.

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).

Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing?

[Shag]

Technically MS owns the patent to the jogging dial thingy on the iPod too, but since the terms of the deal... Really? Interesting. And of course the iPhone... has no jogging dial thingy. Not even a virtual on-screen one, as far as I could see in an hour of playing with one at a store. It's also not stuck in the "hierarchial interface" Creative sued Apple over.

I'm beginning to think that Apple's real design strength lies in its ability to note that someone else has come up with a good idea first (like Creative with the hierarchial model) and come up with a completely different idea that is at least as slick and pretty, and at least as good (though perhaps not actually better)... then persuade world+dog that anything someone else has a patent on is old and busted, while the new interface is the way to go.

Is "Cover Flow" - which Apple has been flogging everywhere from iTunes to Leopard's Finder to the iPhone - actually better than the hierarchial model? Hard to say. Is it far, far more slick and pretty? Hell, yeah. Same goes for the multi-touch interface. It may or may not actually be quantifiably better than whatever it replaced, but it's slick and pretty and will have everyone else chasing Apple's heels.

The BBC took a look at an iPhone and decided that the claims it was 5 years ahead of everything else weren't valid. Technologically, they said, it wasn't really ahead at all (mostly because of bog-slow EDGE). As far as the user experience, however, they said it had a good 10-year lead.

Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing?

[cerberusss]

we will soon know exactly how much (X)GPL code it contains

Readers of the parent will probably ask themselves, "what is this XGPL he speaks of?".

To clarify: the newly drafted XGPL is an extension of the recently released GPL3. It now includes sharing the wife as well as the sourcecode.

Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As part of deal with Gates and company buying 25% of Apple in non-voting shares a few years back...

In 1997 MS invested $150 million in Apple shares as part of a settlement. At the time, Apple had $1.2 billion in cash reserves. If I can get 25% of a company with $1.2 billion in real cash, for only 150 million, please show me where to sign up. I suspect the real percentage of outstanding stock $150 million represented was a hell of a lot less than 25%.

Apple has use of the MS patent library as part of the deal.

No, they don't. They do have the rights to some specific things, like the Windows implementation APIs that existed at the time, but do not have rights to use patents that has ever been publicly revealed and that I've heard of.

Technically MS owns the patent to the jogging dial thingy on the iPod too...

Apple Patent application number for the scroll wheel was #20060167982. They were sued by Quantum, who claimed it infringed an existing patent of theirs, but I've never heard anyone claim MS had a patent on it.

Are you just making this stuff up, or do you read some News site written by a really boring paranoid schizophrenic?

Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing?

[Anonymous Coward]

And just because you are paranoid doesnt mean they arent out to get you.

Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing?

[jigyasubalak]

XGPL rocks! Now, if only they extend XGPL to include all hot women anyone looks at I'll be sound as a pound.

Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing?

[cerberusss]

Since I'm the one-man-team drafting the new XGPL, I'm taking your comment into account.

*clock ticks one second*

We've decided that the XGPL cannot be released without your comment. In fact, we're retroactively updating all drafts as if this comment has always been there.

Now we should write some killer app and license it under the XGPL...

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Eunuchswear]

If they're using LGPL'd code in the iPhone they must allow the owner to re-link his iPhone against new versions of the LGPL'd code.

I.E. The iPhone becomes a programmable platform.

Apples Making Cell Phones?

[GreggBz]

So, I read the story and realize that Apples making cell phones now!?
Cool, I'll have to check this out.

Re:Apples Making Cell Phones?

[edwardpickman]

They also have a new disinformation department called iBull. It's purpose is to leak information about nonexistent products they are developing to drive Bill Gates crazy. The iCar is one such product. It's supposed to marry iPod, iPhone and iMac into one portable take anywhere unit that will run on any fuel source and can be recharged by solar panels. Microsoft is responding with their own car nicknamed "Zoom". Apple spends a couple of grand on some nice CG renders of the iCar, Microsoft spends ten billion developing and marketing their Zoom car, the smile on Steve Jobs face, priceless.

Re:Apples Making Cell Phones?

[Eunuchswear]

I'm sorry, but iBull has been closed down after a cease-and-desist letter from Groupe Bull

Harmful

[pubjames]

I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux. OSS advocates scream "FUD" when companies like Microsoft try to scare clients by saying using GPL software opens them up to legal action, but this kind of statement by the FSS shows that they have a point. The FSS needs to choose its battles more wisely if it is not going to harm the people it is supposed to help.

Re:Harmful

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux.

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:Harmful

[Eunuchswear]

Uh, Apple don't use Linux - they use Mach and BSD.

Re:Harmful

[joe 155]

I hate to cast aspersions on you and whether or not you might actually be "FUD-ing", but it seems like you might be.

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 not saying "OMG!!11! WE'LL SUE APPLE FOR 1 TRILLION DOLLARS!!" they are saying "if there is a license violation, which we are not sure that there is, then they would need to make sure that the software that WE wrote can be accessed by us and we know what has been done with it"

When you put it like that I think they sound a whole lot more reasonable

Re:Harmful

[dmayle]

The FSF needs to choose its battles more wisely if it is not going to harm the people it is supposed to help.

That's ridiculous! The very people the FSF are trying to protect are the end users, not the companies who want to profit off of GNU works. All they're saying is, if you want to profit from their code, you have to follow the licenses that come with it. Using GPL software does not open you up to legal action. Creating software using someone else's code does. (Whether it's GPL or not) GPL'ed software just has the benefit of allowing you to build off of it if you decide to open up your code as well.

Re:Harmful

[jkrise]

I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux.

Firstly, are you sure the iPhone uses Linux or GPLed components? If so, I would hate the FSF if it didn't stand up for the spirit of the GPL - ie: Freedom to users. Why should the FSF stand idly by, when some (allegedly) unscrupulous corporate makes $500 by denying freedom to it's customers? The market might be able to come up with a $50 device, if the spirit of the GPL were to be enforced... would you consider it harmful then?

OSS advocates scream "FUD" when companies like Microsoft try to scare clients by saying using GPL software opens them up to legal action, but this kind of statement by the FSS shows that they have a point.

Using or distributing GPL software for a profit never gets anyone into trouble, provided said user or distributor respects the GPL. If Microsoft does try to scare clients this way, then they are engaging in FUD - pure and simple.

The FSS needs to choose its battles more wisely if it is not going to harm the people it is supposed to help.

I'd say companies need to choose their software licenses very carefully while developing, selling or distributing them. If indeed Apple uses GPLed code and is in violation, the FSF has chosen it's battles very carefully.

Re:Harmful

[McDutchie]

I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux.

Linux is not an FSF project and Linux's authors are well known to view the FSF with hostility. And Apple does not use Linux in any of its products. Your comment is totally off-topic.

OSS advocates scream "FUD" when companies like Microsoft try to scare clients by saying using GPL software opens them up to legal action, but this kind of statement by the FSS shows that they have a point.

What kind of statement? How did the FSF threaten legal action by describing the iPhone as what it is?

The FSS needs to choose its battles more wisely if it is not going to harm the people it is supposed to help.

The FSF is doing a fine job helping the people it's supposed to help. You seem to have the wrong idea of who those people are.

Re:Harmful

[pubjames]

The very people the FSF are trying to protect are the end users, not the companies who want to profit off of GNU works.

The FSF enforces the GPL, and so it is acting in the interests of programmers/organisations that release software with that licence. If they put people off the adoption of software which uses the GPL then they are harming the people that choose to release software under the GPL, which is contrary to their aims.

Re:Harmful

[Macthorpe]

Saying something like that comes with the implication that you do think there's GPL'd software on there.

Otherwise, why say it at all?

Re:Harmful

[cowscows]

Yeah, but why would you make a public statement like that unless you're trying to move public opinion one way or another. If he were to call up Apple and say, "hey guys don't forget that any GPL stuff on your nifty new phone needs to have available source," then I'd buy that he's just covering his bases.

Making a public statement like this, it really reads as borderline accusatory. Especially because he started his statement by talking about how the iphone is a crippled device. While that might be an accurate term based on the FSF's definition of the word "crippled", it is certainly not a friendly thing to say, and is not the kind of talk you'd use if you were interested in working with someone to find a solution that satisfies both sides.

I don't know what this guy's intention were, maybe it wasn't to come across so negatively, but it really reads as "We don't like the iPhone and we bet Apple is trying to cheat us." If the FSF feels that that is the only way they can make progress towards their goals, that's their call, but it's not how I'd suggest going about things.

Re:Harmful

[biggerboy]

On in the small community of slashdot do users = programmers.

99.9% of *users* don't care about recompiling the software on their iPhone.

Sheesh.

Re:Harmful

[MindStalker]

"Mozilla is not an HTML user agent" comment for bug 915.

Nope, its a CSS user agent. ..Damnit Hixie, get out of my head..

Re:Harmful

[gad_zuki!]

>'Apple's released a proprietary & DRM-crippled phone - I wonder if it has GPLd software on it?'

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 running a scam against oss and its own "ignorant" customers.

If anything, this is a huge disinventive for any company in the future to deal with any oss software. The rabid fanboys who think they know better than everyone will simply denounce you and cause bad publicity, sometimes without proof.

Another reason I will never send money to the fsf.

Re:Harmful

[mrsbrisby]

I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux. OSS advocates scream "FUD" when companies like Microsoft try to scare clients by saying using GPL software opens them up to legal action, but this kind of statement by the FSS shows that they have a point. The FSS needs to choose its battles more wisely if it is not going to harm the people it is supposed to help.

The GPL is designed to encourage the production of more Free software because all software should be free anyway, not because some developers think their own software should be free. This isn't about altruism, but about a more deep sense of right and wrong.

When you buy a book, you wouldn't think anyone could suggest that you don't have the right to read it, or mark passages with a yellow hilighter, would you? Really?

And yet, somehow the Right of Copy which is applied to books, it all made sense. People could read good books, and write better ones. Copyright produced new works by providing a limited monopoly on a work, in an effort to make the wonders in these books more accessible to all.

Now, copyright applied to software somehow means something else: They get to copyright something that we can't enjoy- the code itself. They keep the code secret and unusable, and thus they have usurped rights that copyright never was meant to grant.

This is wrong. Disney got copyright extended perpetually so that nothing of theirs enter the public domain. They built their empire on the public domain- the Cinderella, and the Jungle Book. They convinced Congress- and apparently you- that copyright is about doing something it was never meant to.

The FSF is probably the only group really challenging Copyright at all. They're staying limited to software- which as mysterious as software is to laypeople, makes it seem like they're taking an extreme position.

The FSF is a champion of this often neglected freedom, and its time people stop fighting them on it. I understand corporations wanting to maximize their profits fighting this. I understands corporations lobbying congress to change the laws to be better for them, but we need to fight the corporate lobbyists, and not the FSF.

Re:Harmful

[damiam]

Linux is not an FSF project and Linux's authors are well known to view the FSF with hostility. And Apple does not use Linux in any of its products. Your comment is totally off-topic.

No one outside the geek community knows or cares about these distinctions. People see the FSF doing something stupid and they associate it with open source as a whole.

What kind of statement? How did the FSF threaten legal action by describing the iPhone as what it is?

"Describing the iPhone as what it is?" They made an accusation without no evidence. What about "It will be interesting to see the extent to which you've been beating your wife" - is that a fair statement?

Re:Harmful

[lubricated]

>> If anything, this is a huge disinventive for any company in the future to deal with any oss software. The rabid fanboys who think they know better than everyone will simply denounce you and cause bad publicity, sometimes without proof.

that's always been the point of gpl, if you use it and don't let people change it then they don't want you using free software.

Re:Harmful

[w3woody]

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?'

Yeah, and I wonder when the spokes'droid stopped beating his wife.

Sorry, but such a statement is inflammatory on its surface and is borderline defamation as it suggests without evidence legal wrongdoing on the part of Apple. That is, the FSF is speaking something which is potentially (and designed to be) damaging to Apple, done knowing there is no evidence for such wrongdoing. That such borderline defamation got published sounds like borderline libel (borderline only in that it appears to skirt the legal limits by a hairs breadth), and doesn't do the FSF any damned good.

Re:Harmful

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is all the more reason why Apple shouldn't have any objection to complying with GPL or other licenses.

Put another way, an iPhone that honored the GPL and even embraced sharing of interesting parts of their
proprietary crap (esp. only working on AT&T) could have a product that ran wickedly well on their chosen
software and network. And upon being unlocked, they'd sell even *better*, since there are folks like me
that'd buy one in an instant if I could.

Note: Since I live & work in a region where coverage comes thru 'Edge', an AT&T affiliate, I can't buy an iPhone And
even if I *could*, I'm not sure I'd buy AT&T, given their enthusiastic wiretapping habits. So, what I'm saying here
isn't hypothetical. And, given the railing against AT&T, wireless data speeds, and the size of the international
cellular market, it isn't *just* those few nowhere-USA-dwelling schlubs like me that are left out in the cold.

Re:Harmful

[Rich0]

No one outside the geek community knows or cares about these distinctions. People see the FSF doing something stupid and they associate it with open source as a whole.

And the FSF (and most of its developers) don't really care if anybody adopts linux, GNU, or any other open source software, at least not so much that they are willing to give up the intent of the GPL.

If I had written a chunk of khtml code and Apple stole it without compensating me I'd be pretty ticked - even if I did allow it to be freely used by others who share their code back with me. Maybe I'd like to buy an iphone and mod it - they modded my code and aren't willing for me to do the same? Legally Apple has no right to use ANYBODY'S code for anything without a license. Just because I allow SOME people to use my code freely for some purposes doesn't mean that ANYBODY can use it freely for anything they'd like to.

If Apple wants a fancy web browser and aren't willing to abide by the redistribution terms the copyright holders have stipulated then they should go write their own... :)

Re:Harmful

[damiam]

No evidence has been produced that Apple stole anything or has violated any license terms. Do that first before lobbing accusations. Yes, it'd be nice if the iPhone was freely moddable, but nothing in the LGPL requires that.

Re:Harmful

[darkheavy]

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.

Continue the sencence "I wonder if it has GPLd software on it".

Now it's me the one who wonders how many tequilas the FSF guy drank before doing that statement

Re:Harmful

[MasonMcD]

How come no one has made an "uncrippled" phone this easy to use? Or "uncrippled" *anything* this easy to use?

Seriously. LAMP is a great success story, but anything in the consumer space?

Re:Harmful

[Anonymous Coward]

How come no one has made an "uncrippled" phone this easy to use? Or "uncrippled" *anything* this easy to use?

Breasts? Or perhaps you prefer a cripple's breasts?

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Rogerborg]

Why's that then?

Re:"Run afoul?"

[mr_matticus]

Ultimately, it's immaterial, as all the LGPL content in the iPhone is 2.1. If one of the copyright owners switches to GPL v3, then all Apple has to do is stop using that code. They're not required to comply with GPL v3 simply because it now exists. The v2.1 code is what they licensed; they're not required either to upgrade to or to accept the v3 license.

"Sensationalism" is correct.

[Saint Fnordius]

This is a base attempt to get attention, to get some of the bigger press outlets to look at them. I suspect that they are in reality simply resenting that the iPhone buried almost all awareness of the GPL3 release, and are now desperate for attention.

Re:"Sensationalism" is correct.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

This is a base attempt to get attention, to get some of the bigger press outlets to look at them. I suspect that they are in reality simply resenting that the iPhone buried almost all awareness of the GPL3 release, and are now desperate for attention.

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:"Sensationalism" is correct.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Look at Me! Look at Me! La La La I am here don't look at the iPhone, I am GPL3, My job is to kill the growth of Free Software!! Hey Hey Look at me!!!

Re:"Sensationalism" is correct.

[jkrise]

This is a base attempt to get attention, to get some of the bigger press outlets to look at them. I suspect that they are in reality simply resenting that the iPhone buried almost all awareness of the GPL3 release, and are now desperate for attention.

If Apple chose to use GPL-derived code in it's products, why should it be exempt from criticisms about the intent and purposes of the end devices it sells? Why didn't Apple choose a clean-room non-GPL base to develop it's operating systems and other products?

If Apple chose GPL'd code because it was superior, and have now forked it because it is convenient for their purposes, the market needs to be made aware of the fact. Sooner the better, in my view.

What if opening the IPhone code leads to a $50 device with same specs and performance? I think the FSF has done a good job here.

Re:"Sensationalism" is correct.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I suspect that they are in reality simply resenting that the iPhone buried almost all awareness of the GPL3 release, and are now desperate for attention.

If that's true, then tough cookies for them. All indications I've seen says that they set the GPLv3 release date well after Apple finalized the release date for their product. I'd say that there is a good chance they were trying to ride Apple's coat tails on this, though I don't know how they could have done that to their advantage.

They could have changed the date, but it would not have mattered. Few people really care that much about a software license.

Re:"Sensationalism" is correct.

[stackdump]

(either denouncing the iphone or heralding it as the second cumming) Did you mean "coming", I mean the iPhone is really cool but...

Re:"Sensationalism" is correct.

[Macthorpe]

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.

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:"Sensationalism" is correct.

[mi]

If Apple chose to use GPL-derived code in it's products

And if jkrise chose steals petty cash [...]

See, asking a question implies an accusation. FSF has no evidence to accuse Apple of violating GPL. Zero — if they had any, they would've said so. But they ask the question anyway: "The iPhone is leaving people questioning: Does it contain GPLed software?"

That's FUD.

Re:"Sensationalism" is correct.

[chaz373]

"What if opening the IPhone code leads to a $50 device with same specs and performance?" Considering the touch screen alone costs $60.00 I'd like to see this mythical $50.00 copycat.

FSF point out flaws in (L)GPL2

[Rogerborg]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

In Settings / About, there's a hugenormous list of license stuff, including many BSD, MIT, and one or two GPL or LGPL licenses. I believe the GPL/LGPL stuff is accompanied by an offer to provide the sources for some nominal fee upon request (in line with the GPLv2 as I understand it).

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.

Re:GPL and LGPL software included and documented

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought part of the LGPL required that the LGPL library to be updateable.

As someone previously pointed out, in the case of a new version of KHTML being released. By my understanding, to be LGPL compatible, the consumer would need to be free to download and replace KHTML with a newer library. Which the iPhone currently does not allow.

Re:GPL and LGPL software included and documented

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed the following FSF software mentioned in the Legal section:

GPL: libgcc, libstd++
LGPL: libiconv, ncurses

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Richard_at_work]

Where does it say that in the LGPL? (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html)

Wow, that surprises me...

[tgd]

Now maybe there is and maybe there isn't GPL code in the iPhone, but this really stinks like the FSF saying "hey, they're getting a lot of attention, lets see if we can say something bad about them and people will pay attention to us!".

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?

Re:Wow, that surprises me...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is entirely *like* the FSF to pull this kind of stunt. FSF is the kind of organisation that is *always* on the attack, either taking shots at people or whining. I find it really hard to read anything that they have to say these days, especially with their 'propietary' and 'crippled' jingoism.

Show me the FSF quote..

[LingNoi]

.. What? There is none? Talk about reverse FUD tactics.

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."

Article writer saying "will be interesting to see" != FSF sabre rattling != FSF saying "will be interesting to see"

BSD zealot strikes again?

Re:Show me the FSF quote..

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out http://www.fsf.org/iphone-gplv3
pretty much says the same thing.

The FSF are coming across as even more a bunch of whiney hippies than usual with this whole GPL3 fiasco.

Re:Show me the FSF quote..

[ContractualObligatio]

Erm .. the quote was in the article, and the summary?

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 to my beliefs. I would be very interested in having evidence that might support my case."

Given the FSF have worked to develop a new version of the GPL to attack use of free software within proprietary, sealed devices; given that the iPhone is such a device; given that the FSF have just made rather negative comments about the iPhone; given that Peter Brown's "interesting" choice of language is in the same veiled-threat-in-an-apparent-complement sense as "nice place, shame if something happened to it", etc...

Given all that, why would you say this is BSD zealotry FUD, other than your own bias?

Re:Show me the FSF quote..

[OG]

"Will be interesting to see" is part of the quote from the directory of the FSF, not additional commentary from the article writer.

To put it another way...

[itsdapead]

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:To put it another way...

[vadim_t]

Or they could just, you know, comply with the license.

Re:To put it another way...

[someone1234]

How are they able to cross port those changes without Apple submitting them back in the first place?

Re:To put it another way...

[Chris_Jefferson]

Apple already have their own KHTML fork, it's called Webkit. The two pieces of code have separated quite a way now, although there appear to have been attempts recently from both sides to pull them a little closer together again. Apple is more than capable of keeping webkit going on their own.

Re:To put it another way...

[dmayle]

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. And if there are "or later" clauses on the code, Apple does not have the right to remove them from the work (though new code they write doesn't have to have the "or later" clause on it.)

The FSF has a valid point here, and I don't care how much you get off with your Apple products. If they're using GPL, they have to comply with the license, and if they are going to use GPLv3 when it becomes the only license for GNU code, they'll have to open up the iPhone for development if they want to continue using it.

Re:To put it another way...

[jkrise]

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.

The biggest asset for any company is mindshare from it's customers, not marketshare. Apple is just entering the market for cellphones. If enough negative mindshare is built up around the crippling nature of the product, marketshare would be very sluggish in it's growth.

Secondly, if Apple does fork GPLed components and sticks with Tivoisation, customers would tend to view Apple very negatively. Which is bound to hurt them over the long run.

Re:To put it another way...

[jellomizer]

I really doubt that, my hemp smoking friend. Apple has never been s supporter of the GPL they like open source (They are a fair weather support of the Open Source Community in general) but not the GPL. Also apple has a good track record of keeping their software up to date by themselves without the help of the Open-Source Community, if it suits its needs. Apple has gotten burned in the past from being to open in the past, you know the whole Microsoft stealing its GUI thing. So Apple now patents all their innovation to protect themselves, because while Apple is growing and making a lot of money right now they know how tenuous it is, it could take one company to make a competing product that uses only 1 or a couple major features that Apple forgot to patent for them to loose their market, and all the money that they spend on R&D got wasted. So if the GPL people start shaking their bongs as Apple apple will just not use the the GPL code and make their own. So the GPL looses bragging rights that their code is used in a popular product (making future commercial adoption harder and less bragging rights for the author). reduces the chance that Apple will offer contributions for GPL projects. Apple is a tough on its venders and OpenSource is considered a vendor You play by apples rules or not at all, and Apple doesn't tolerate people wanting to change the rules not keep up to their bargain. How many times have you seen apple just dump one technology and go with an other one. The same will happen to GPL3 Code if they Open Source Project they are using Diticates that We Smoke Pot and we think GPL3 is the 7337est and our project will use it from now on so Apple you need to Open up your product. Apple will just go, OK so we wont use your product and we will use x instead or we will just make our own and the next week the project you spend working on will be replaced with our own version in a security update.

Re:To put it another way...

[lbbros]

Apple has gotten burned in the past from being to open in the past, you know the whole Microsoft stealing its GUI thing. So Apple now patents all their innovation to protect themselves,

In other words, they want to be better at lock-in than Microsoft.

Re:To put it another way...

[Speare]

Can you tell me how forking a GPLv2-only variant is NOT complying with the license?

Re:To put it another way...

[vadim_t]

So easy solution, Apple shouldn't use GPL code and write their own then.

If Apple isn't going to comply, then writers of GPL code aren't going to benefit from Apple's usage anyway.

Personally I don't give a damn about "bragging rights", contribution of code as mandated by the license is the one thing I care about.

Re:To put it another way...

[vadim_t]

I meant that they could just comply with the GPL3 if KHTML ever switches to it.

Re:To put it another way...

[jellomizer]

Well yes how is that news. Apple is credited for making good products and being innovative. Not making products that prevent Lock-in. Part of the reason of Microsoft overall success over apple is that Microsoft offers less lock-in then Apple.

Re:To put it another way...

[jellomizer]

If they have to they will. If they don't have to and they can use GPL code legally without compromising their project they will so they can use their resources towards other things. If you think of it economically all that the GPL3 did was make GPL Code more expensive economically. As Price Goes up the Quantity Demanded goes down. GPL 3 new restrictions are an unrealized cost, so the more restrictions of the GPL the more it will cost and less the demand. Now Apple and TiVo probably did a lot of support and contribution to many projects that were GPL (they may or may not have put the Apple or TiVo Name on it but of the individual employees, who did it on Apples or TiVo's dime) Just because it didn't say Code By TiVo or Code by Apple and they took some things and kept it secrete. You assume that going without them will be better off, but you could loose a lot of support.

Re:To put it another way...

[vadim_t]

I write code for my own enjoyment. Here are my metrics:

My code is used, user complies with GPL, releases their improvements, and uses the code on a device where I can change it: Great
My code isn't used at all: Neutral
My code is used, but the device is locked down and I can't update my own code on it: BAD

My code not being used at all is preferrable to it being used in the wrong way.

Re:To put it another way...

[dkf]

[I]f Apple does fork GPLed components and sticks with Tivoisation, a small minority of customers would tend to view Apple very negatively. There, fixed that for you.

Remember, most people getting iPhones won't care either way about the GPL and the FSF, or even the basic fact that the iPhone is a computing device. It's just not on their radar. (That you and your friends care is beside the point; I'd lay money on the fact that you're not a majority of iPhone purchasers...)

Re:To put it another way...

[itsdapead]

The FSF has a valid point here,

What point? iPhone contains GPLv2 code. Apple are complying with the GPLv2.

and I don't care how much you get off with your Apple products.

I don't even OWN an iBuzz!

If they're using GPL, they have to comply with the license,

AFAIK, they are...

and if they are going to use GPLv3 when it becomes the only license for GNU code, they'll have to open up the iPhone for development if they want to continue using it.

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.

Re:To put it another way...

[fotbr]

I code for my enjoyment as well, except I prefer the BSD license or I just declare it to be public domain.

My code is used and kept open: I'm happy.
My code is not used at all: I'm happy.
My code is used and locked down inside a device or inside closed-source software: I'm happy.

Unlike you, I apparently get my enjoyment out of the coding itself, not what happens to it afterwards.

Re:To put it another way...

[geschild]

"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." And vice versa... In other words: the coders won't see their brainchild hijacked, Apple has to do all the work themselves instead of relying on the community.

A proud day indeed!

Re:To put it another way...

[vadim_t]

Good for you.

While I do enjoy coding, I don't do it for free. I have zero interest in effectively being an unpaid worker in some huge corporation. If you want to use mine, you have two options:

A. Comply with the GPL and pay me with your contributions.
B. Hire me, or buy a license.

Re:To put it another way...

[LWATCDR]

1. It is already forked it is called webkit http://webkit.org/
2. If KHTML moved to LGPL3 then it would loose the benefits of the developers working on webkit. It is a sword that cuts both ways.
3. As many FOSS project have proven a small team can do a lot of good work. Apple could carry webkit all on it's own for a good long while.

Re:To put it another way...

[damiam]

IANAL, but can anyone offer an opinion on whether Apple would actually be able to remove the "or later" clause from WebKit? If the license for the KHTML code they started with used that clause, aren't they obligated to keep the same license for all derivative works?

Re:To put it another way...

[walter_f]

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.

Yes, a proud day for the GPLv3.

Even better, another one of those nice days the KHMTL team already has enjoyed with Apple before.

Walter.

Re:To put it another way...

[Blakey Rat]

Well, the license allows forking, so if that hypothetical situation occurred, they would be complying with the license. So what you're saying and what the parent is saying isn't mutually-exclusive. Which makes me wonder why you have an 'if' there.

Of course, it's all moot anyway, since Apple already has forked KHTML. It's called "Webkit", ever hear of it? It's even available on Windows now.

Who marks this stuff Insightful? Seriously? My cat is more insightful.

Re:To put it another way...

[itsdapead]

IANAL, but can anyone offer an opinion on whether Apple would actually be able to remove the "or later" clause from WebKit?

IANAL either, but as far as I can tell the GPLv2 says that if you re-distribute verbatim you must keep the copyright notices intact (sec. 1) but OTOH if you create a derivative work it must be licensed under the terms of "this license" (i.e. GPLv2).

So - if its a verbatim copy, no you can't change it, if you've added your own work to it, oh yes you can.

This makes sense to me - once you "own" some of the code then you get a say in how it is licensed, as long as you don't impose further restrictions (sec 6).

I'd be less happy unilaterally "upgrading" someone else's GPLv2 or later code to v3 without asking - the "or later" clause was part of the FSFs "pro forma" wording and I wouldn't assume that everybody who used it intended to (at least partially) waive section 6.

Methinks this "or later" business will become a big issue if there is a v2 vs v3 schism.

Re:To put it another way...

[fotbr]

And therein lies the rub. I get paid to code when I'm working. Any coding I do on my time is done as a hobby, and I don't care if I'm paid for that or not, since its a hobby. I've received donations from people that use stuff I developed on my own time, but I'd have written in anyway. I don't know of any "huge corporation" using my hobby code, and frankly I don't give a damn if they did. That doesn't make me an unpaid worker for them, it means I differentiate between my hobby and work.

But as for your GPL options, you forgot option C, and D.

C) Use your code for internal projects, modify it, extend it, and make you an unpaid worker without you ever knowing -- after all, if they don't distribute it, none of the requirements for contributing back apply.
D) Say screw open source and go back to proprietary solutions.

In any case, enjoy the GPL, I'll enjoy watching RMS and his faithful followers blabber around when people don't think the same as they do. I'll continue making TRUE open source software, with NO restrictions, and REAL freedom.

Re:To put it another way...

[Rich0]

The GPL isn't about leaching off of others code anyway. Three years ago khtml didn't benefit from webkit - they haven't really lost anything if next year they're back to the same situation...

Re:To put it another way...

[vadim_t]

Like I said, good for you.

Option C: Correct, as the GPL isn't an EULA. Due to copyright you're not allowed to redistribute unless I allow it with for example the GPL, but whatever you do that doesn't involve distribution is completely outside of the scope of the license. But AFAIK, companies generally stay far away from this, as IF somebody, some day accidentally released it, it would be trouble.

Option D: Doesn't apply in the slightest. I said "if you want to use MY code". If you aren't using it, then I don't have anything to say about that in the first place, do I? If you aren't using my code, then whatever you're using whether open or closed is completely irrelevant for me.

But ignoring the above, I have absolutely no problem with option D. You seem to confuse me with somebody who wants OSS everywhere for some ideological reason.

And I don't really care how you call the GPL. Whether it's free, non-free, "true open source", "communism" or whatever else you want to call it is completely irrelevant semantics to me: it does exactly what I want, and that's the only thing that matters.

It looks to me like...

[Anonymous Coward]

In its zeal to destroy proprietary vendors, FSF has become as bad as one.

Re:It looks to me like...

[iamwahoo2]

How is that?

Did you actually read the article?

GPL 3

[Enderandrew]

That is a big aspect of the GPL v3, the Tivoization clause, allowing you to do whatever you want with the hardware you purchase if it includes any GPL-based software.

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 content, and there is no evidence to suggest that, it wouldn't be a violation, unless it was GPL v3 content, and Apple decided to lock people out.

Re:GPL 3

[Eunuchswear]

Yes, but we're talking about LGPL, not GPL, and the LGPL says you must let the user re-link.

Re:GPL 3

[Enderandrew]

The supposition hangs on two points. First, that the iPhone is using LGPL code. The second is that Apple intends to violate the license and not allow for people to install updates.

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:GPL 3

[Kjella]

Yes, but it falls under the same umbrella as Tivoization - you may relink the software, to run on some other hardware but you've got no promise it'll run on your iPhone any more than your custom kernel will run on your Tivo. No other hardware? Well, I think that's where you replace "2. ???" in your business plan.

Re:GPL 3

[Eunuchswear]

Well, I did say "if the iPhone includes..."

According to http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=244627&c id=19728215 the "Settings/About" option lists the licenses for the included software, and includes the LGPL.

The LGPL doesn't say that Apple have to release updates, it says that the user has the right to update the software with new versions of the LGPL software.

Re:GPL 3

[massysett]

unless it was GPL v3 content

Considering that the GPL v3 was released mere hours before the iPhone, it's impossible that the device incorporates any code licensed under GPL v3.

I really don't see the point of this story...

Re:GPL 3

[Eunuchswear]

Yes, but it falls under the same umbrella as Tivoization - you may relink the software, to run on some other hardware but you've got no promise it'll run on your iPhone any more than your custom kernel will run on your Tivo.

Depends how one interprets:

For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.

Re:GPL 3

[Enderandrew]

I understand the distinction. Again, between the browser or the syncing function, Apple could allow a mechanism for the user to install updates to the LGPL portions. When you've seen proof that Apple intends to violate this, let me know.

Re:GPL 3

[jx100]

What evidence do you have that they will allow user-based versions of the LGPL'd parts? They seem to have made it clear that they intend to wall off the OS and make no user-created code usable outside of simple widgets.

Re:GPL 3

[Eunuchswear]

Apple could allow a mechanism for the user to install updates to the LGPL portions [my emphasis]

1. If I'm interpreting the LGPL 2.1 correctly, and if the iPhone includes LGPL libraries then Apple must allow people to update the LGPL libraries.
    
2. And, if Apple do that then the iPhone becomes a programmable device.

When you've seen proof that Apple intends to violate this, let me know.

I neither know nor care whether Apple has any intention of violating anything. I'm just pointing out an interesting consequence of the license (as I understand it). This seems to have got some kinds of people all excited.

Re:GPL 3

[Enderandrew]

Not necessarily.

Let's say everytime there is a new version of LGPL program X, Apple just makes it a download available via iTunes specific for the iPhone. They even hash the download.

It doesn't make it a fully programmable device.

Re:GPL 3

[Ash Vince]

There is another supposition that this entire discussion relies on:

That the GPL or LGPL or whatever wont just get chucked in the bin by the first court that look at it. All it will takes is one company with deep pockets to chellenge it in their local court where the judge knows deciding against the company may cost alot of his constituents jobs. Chances are that he will side with business rather than some licence which many people view as trying to enforce a non-capitalist ethic. All the company have to do it plant a few stories in the media showing Richard Stallman's picture and it will turn off people in droves. I am not saying this is a good situation, but lets face it, he is not really that photogenic (read well groomed). It would be very easy to portray him as some 60's drop out to most of middle america.

The fact is that until the GPL gets challenged in the supreme court and the FSF win, there will always be some doubt as to how well it can hold up to a multi-million dollar legal suite.

Re:GPL 3

[Eunuchswear]

Hey, I've just made a new version of the lib! Let's download it!

The LGPL says nothing about "official" (whatever that might mean) versions of the software.

The first "F" in FSF stands for "Free".

Re:GPL 3

[Anonymous Coward]

And the "S" stands for "Software". Your software is perfectly free...it's the hardware that is restricted.

Re:GPL 3

[Anonymous Coward]

As has been pointed out many times before, if the (L)GPL is legally invalid, then standard copyright terms apply and Apple then has *no* right to distribute the software at all. What Apple would want in any court case would be the GPL to be interpreted in a specific way, not declared invalid.

Re:GPL 3

[Eunuchswear]

If the LGPL is chucked in the bin then there is no license to use the code.

In this case at least some of it is copyright Apple, so their OK with that, but (assuming we're talking about Webkit here) they have no right to the KHTML code it's based on.

Re:GPL 3

[annodomini]

The iPhone includes WebKit as the rendering engine for its web browser, which is based on KHTML, an LGPL'd piece of software. No, I don't have a physical iPhone in front of me, but this has been confirmed from multiple sources. So yes, there is LGPL'd software on there. And no, there is no officially supported or documented way to load a modified version onto your phone, and Apple has specifically said that they won't allow 3rd party code to run on the iPhone, and it it taking quite an effort at hacking to even be able to access the filesystem on the iPhone. Apple has been notified of this (it has been discussed on the WebKit development list), including the specifics of how it violates Section 6 of the LGPL, and has not provided any form of official response. I have considered contacting Apple's legal department myself, but given that I do not hold any of the copyright in the code, I wanted to wait and see if someone with a better claim wanted to contact them first.

Re:GPL 3

[Kjella]

Yes, but it falls under the same umbrella as Tivoization - you may relink the software, to run on some other hardware but you've got no promise it'll run on your iPhone any more than your custom kernel will run on your Tivo.

Depends how one interprets:
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.

Well, most people including the FSF seem to agree the GPLv2 doesn't imply any right to have your binary signed, only access to the corresponding source code. If the LGPLv2 were to be interpreted stricter than that, it would be an "additional requirement" and make the LGPL incompatible with the GPL. That would go against 15 years of established interpretation and make free software a license nightmare, so I wouldn't even go there.

Re:GPL 3

[Enderandrew]

Other companies have had their EULA win in courts before and it isn't like the GPL is new (save for the new version). Apple is fully aware of the licenses that they agreed to.

Re:GPL 3

[Eunuchswear]

For the nth time we're not talking about the GPL, we're talking about the LGPL.

Like the GPL the LGPL says distributors of LGPL code have to provide source to their modified version. That's not the interesting part.

The LGPL also says the distributors of code linked to LGPL code have to provide the tools and files needed to make a new version of the program with a different version of the LGPL code.

Re:GPL 3

[civilizedINTENSITY]

It seems unclear to me what you mean by "updates". It isn't enough that I can do something like "apt-get update safari".

Re:GPL 3

[civilizedINTENSITY]

OK, lets say I modify LGPL program X and now I'm ready to install it. Are you suggesting that everytime someone modifies the program Apple is going to want to pay for the bandwidth (and admin costs) of tracking all those changes and making them available? Ha!

Re:GPL 3

[Ash Vince]

Actually I think you might find that without the GPL you could argue that the entire code was in the public domain, and hence fair game. This could be due to it not being fixed in a tangaible medium by a single identifiable author.

Even if it is not in the public domain, who holds the copyright to stop you using the code? Would it all miraculously end up being property of the FSF for them to do with as they saw fit? Could they then decide to sell it to the highest bidder against the will of the people actually wrote it? Would each chunk of code still remain the copyright of each original author? If this is the case what about the code that was written by one person but has been amended by several different people since?

If the GPL was struck down it may make it impossible to distribute any version of linux commercially as it suddenly became the intellectual property thousands of different people all over the world. If Apple have no right to use the code how would RedHat be any different?

I am not a lawyer so I do not know the answer to any of these questions, but I do know that the situation is alot more complicated than most people seem to think.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Enderandrew]

Even then, wouldn't the new license only apply to new releases?

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:"Run afoul?"

[Eunuchswear]

From the LGPL V2.1:

5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.

So if the iPhone contains LGPL code the non-LGPL parts are covered by section 6:

6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.

You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:

        * a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
        * b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
        * 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.
        * 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.
        * e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.

For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
[...]

Apple points out flaws in SmartPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

Film at 11.

Yawn.

Change the (i)tune, Apple. Yes, we know that the iPhone is out, and that it's waaaaaaaaay better at infecting personal media than the SmartPhone, and we should all switch to it immediately. It's getting old.

So much snark to do and yet so little time...

Jog dial?

[Enderandrew]

Really?

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.

Re:Jog dial?

[BasilBrush]

For patent lawyers:

The edge of a wheel on the side of a device is not the same thing as a full wheel on the front of a device.

And a phone is not the same thing as a portable music player.

Re:Jog dial?

[Enderandrew]

I should email suggestions to the various phone companies asking someone to bring back the jog-dial in a phone. That I would buy in a heart-beat.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Eunuchswear]

LGPL V2.1 imposes the same "user must be allowed to re-link" condition that LGPL V3 does - it's its whole raison-d'être.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[mr_matticus]

Absolutely correct. Why the parent was modded insightful is beyond me.

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.

Don't even suggest it!

[Enderandrew]

Apple would never consider forking KHTML!

Re:"Run afoul?"

[VGPowerlord]

Well, for one, section 4 of the LGPL 2.1 requires Apple to release the source code for the LGPL code in the iPhone. Such as what's used in Webkit for the iPhone.

Mentioning WebKit in the summary is also quite the ballsy move, since Apple's WebKit contributions to KHTML are among the biggest known returns to "free" software by a proprietary Fortune 500 company.

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 project to be formed.

*Users'* freedom

[DrYak]

Because the GPL3 is not about "free as in liberty", it's about "free as in do what RMS says".

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:*Users'* freedom

[Eunuchswear]

*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.

And how is this not in breach of section 6 of the LGPL 2.1?

[...]
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.

Seems to me that "data" includes their signing keys :-)

Re:*Users'* freedom

[Hal_Porter]

Seems to me that "data" includes their signing keys :-)

What are you waiting for? Send Mr Jobs an email with your impeccable legal argument, and I'm sure he'll release the signing keys so you and everyone else will be able to flash their iPhones with whatever they want.

Re:*Users'* freedom

[NSIM]

- 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) ?

Yes, that's gonna happen, because AT&T, TVIO etc are just dying to have custoomers running god knows what code and still expecting support when the damn thing doesn't work properly ;-)

- 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 ?

I could see TIVO doing that, TIVO only really needs the kernel, might be more tricky for Apple, I don't know how non-BSD code they have.

- Or will manufacturer simply stop using GPL code at all and slowly switch to more corporate-friendly instead of user-friendly license like BSD ?

I think it quite likely that people will look for code sources not covered by GPL3 for commercial applications, especially startups who often need to show their VCs that they actually control their IP.

- And will Apple try to bribe the FSF by offer free iPhone, please ?

Don't hold your breath :-)

Re:*Users'* freedom

[agalavis]

I do not see why the license should allow you to "put" anything inside the phone. You have the right to get the code, get any improvement the made over the original code and change it again, but why would you have the right to get it back inside? the telephone itself is not GPL'd. I guess all depends on the implementation, but the proprietary firmware coud very well be written to only work with a known code or binary. You can try to fool the firmware, but they don't have to give you help for this.
All in all, you can get the code and install it in any thing in which you could normally install anything, just don't complain because you can't install it into an ultra secret fighter airplane...

Re:*Users'* freedom

[DrRobert]

The problem is that the CODE is GPL'd you have the source and can do what you want with it. The hardware is not GPL'd and there is no inherent claim or promise that you can do what you want with it. The overall service is not GPL'd. You have the source code and you are entitled to rewrite the Apple firmware to do whatever you want, with whatever means of hacking. Of course this means that it will any longer work with Apple's system.

If someone wants to start GPL'ing hardware then more power to them, but it IS A DISTICNT issue. An it makes no logical sense to tie the software copyright to a particular piece of hardware. After all you have the source code and can make it run on ANY piece of hardware, why should the license apply to an unforseen piece of hardware. The issue here seems to be that there is some implicit requirement that hardware vendors make it EASY to hack their hardware and guarantee hacks will be compatible with their service, which is not the point of the GPL. THe point of the GPL is that you can modify the software and you may do this on whatever peice of hardware you are geek enough to make work. The iPhone is designed such that this will likely not be worth the time investment.

Re:*Users'* freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw the users.

What about the freedom of the *DEVELOPERS*?

They're the ones that count, after all.

Re:*Users'* freedom

[mrsbrisby]

The problem is that the CODE is GPL'd you have the source and can do what you want with it. The hardware is not GPL'd.

If I buy something, it's mine. Its no longer Apples, or Microsofts, or yours or anyone elses, but mine. It doesn't require the hardware be GPLed or not to do this- I bought records that I can listen to without them being GPLed, and I bought a TI/4A/99 that I can put software on without it being GPLed.

Everyone in the world knew it wasn't up to the company what I did with it once it was mine. It was even protected under law that way. Eventually, some assholes got the idea that they could suck more money out of people.

Fortunately, the courts disagreed. They said this was a resonable expectation to make changes to what you buy (780 F. Supp 1283 [ND Cal 1991]) and that unless you sign a piece of paper they cannot legally restrict you (847 F.2d 255 [5th Cir. 1998]).

So they stopped legally restricting you, and started technologically restricting you.

Meanwhile, you seem to think that Apple can somehow make an operating system by themselves. They can't. They need people to donate time and programming expertise. I've been more than happy to provide that under the terms that they share some of the load.

So long as Apple decides to play nicely, Apple gets good quality code, a large QA base, free testing and development, and most importantly, more people buying their products.

Now, they found a way to avoid sharing that load, and they immediately start trying to technologically restrict me again, and you think this means anything less than Apple is a bunch of crooks?

In conclusion: you're completely and totally wrong. Not just technically about this having something to do with the GPL, but also morally. You probably eat babies. I'm surprised you can even sleep at night. If you don't believe me, let me borrow a vernacular from one of the most despised minds of our century: Go fuck yourself.

Re:*Users'* freedom

[Hatta]

Yes, it does restrict professional developpers', manufacturers' and other corporates' freedom

The only freedom it restricts is the freedom to deny someone else's freedom. Would you say the Thirteenth Amendment restricts our freedom to hold slaves?

Re:*Users'* freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Their entire argument is stupid and proof as to why the GPL will never hold up in issues like this. KHTML is GPL'd. So KHTML is freely available. It is not a "product" in itself. Just because Safari is built around it does not mean Safari has to have the GPL license, and indeed it does not. The idea of taking it one step furtherrand saying that because KHTML is in Safari and by extension it is "in" the iphone and therefor ethe phone should be GPL is the stupidist thing I have ever heard.

Re:*Users'* freedom

[w3woody]

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.

Because ohmygod you cannot download the WebKit source code that is being used on the iPhone! Horrors of horrors Apple is just as evil as everyone here is saying...

Oh, wait. My bad.

Re:*Users'* freedom

[SanityInAnarchy]

Linus has decided that the GPLv2 is enough, because the only freedom he wants is freedom to read the source.

But the intent of the GPL is not only to give you freedom to read the source, but freedom to modify it and use it in its intended environment. That means not only giving us Webkit source code, but letting us load our custom versions of Webkit onto the iPhone.

Re:*Users'* freedom

[MajinBlayze]

Have you considered that the he is not just trying to argue, but actually looking for an answer?

Re:*Users'* freedom

[SanityInAnarchy]

The hardware is not GPL'd and there is no inherent claim or promise that you can do what you want with it.

Oh please. There's certainly an expectation, or there should be.

My desktop is built from all kinds of hardware that is not GPL'd or anything like it. I don't have schematics, or even specs to some things -- my video card is run by a proprietary driver, even on Linux.

I also have a Windows partition. Yet I run Firefox on it. Certainly Windows is not GPL'd -- as a matter of fact, neither is Firefox, but it's a relevant example. I can and do run GPL'd software on Windows, and I do expect to be able to recompile it and run a modified version without Windows stepping in and stopping me.

For that matter, I can run a modified kernel and expect my nVidia driver to still work, even though the hardware is not GPL'd. It may not work anyway -- after all, the nVidia driver is buggy enough with the vanilla kernel -- but nVidia won't actually stop me from trying.

You have the source code and you are entitled to rewrite the Apple firmware to do whatever you want, with whatever means of hacking. Of course this means that it will any longer work with Apple's system.

Why shouldn't it?

An it makes no logical sense to tie the software copyright to a particular piece of hardware.

The GPLv3 manages to prevent Tivoisation without tying the software to a particular piece of hardware. It simply requires that if you distribute that software, you must provide a way for the user to run modified versions -- including, for instance, if you distribute it with some hardware, your hardware must support running modified versions, with no restrictions not already placed on the original version.

It's all kind of like how the LGPL prevents a sort of software tivoisation -- you may link against this library, but only if you either do it dynamically, or provide at least all of the object files to your program, so that users may relink them statically -- and it explicitly says that your program must still function with another version of that library, providing the API is compatible.

After all you have the source code and can make it run on ANY piece of hardware, why should the license apply to an unforseen piece of hardware.

It doesn't. It only applies to the software.

What this says is, Apple can distribute whatever hardware they want. We can do nothing about this. However, they cannot distribute our code with their hardware, unless said hardware provides the freedoms we ask for.

The issue here seems to be that there is some implicit requirement that hardware vendors make it EASY to hack their hardware

I'm sorry, no. I have no desire to solder an iPhone. This is NOT about hardware hacking.

It's about software hacking. I'd like very much to be able to modify the software on an iPhone.

And I see a lot of BSD-license zealots making similar arguments. Let me make it clear for anyone who doesn't like the terms of the GPL, even the GPLv3: It's take it or leave it. We're not forcing you to change your hardware, or release your source code, or anything of the sort. You're free to lock down your product however you want. You're just not free to do it using our code.

It's simple: If you want people to write you software for free, there's a price. You have to give back.

Re:*Users'* freedom

[maxume]

- Or will manufacturer simply stop using GPL code at all and slowly switch to more corporate-friendly instead of user-friendly license like BSD ?

What is it about the BSD license that makes you think it is not user friendly?

Re:*Users'* freedom

[DrRobert]

I'm sorry but your response makes no sense. In as much as there is logic in your statements I believe you are agreeing with me. Yes, I totally beleive you have the moral right to do whatever you personally want (for your own use) with anything you buy. I never said otherwise. As per this particular article... I do not beleive that just because a a piece of software runs on a particular platform that the software's license has anything to do with the hardware. If it does or if some court finds that it does then that will be the eventual end of the GPL, because no one will invest effort in hardware that they are reposible for on any random level based on the software that may eventaully be applied to it. You do what you want whenever, I agree, just don't feel that you are entitled to any help or service from it/ for it/ or with it.

As to the tangential, and unrelated to the specific subject of the GPL, issue about morality. Morality is a vague and indefined term that is used arebitrarily by people who feel that have something to gain. I travel in third world countries a bit and there is rampant theft, violence, and governmental corruption. When you inquire about why people have to moral responsibility you get the EXACT same answers you see on forums about slashdot relating to IP, I can do what I want, when I want, and no one can force me otherwise, I have a moral right to do these thing because I can't afford things otherwise.

No one like limits, civilization IS limits. Without them you would have a lot more to worry about than which vendor's license or copyright you would like to "morally" violate. Limits are necessary for civilization, civilization makes things practical. Balance is the key. Balance is compromise. Balance is in flux over time. Compromise is when all sides are equally unhappy. Chaos is when one side refused to be the least bit unhappy about anything... ever.

Re:*Users'* freedom

[mrsbrisby]

because no one will invest effort in hardware that they are reposible for on...

This isn't about responsibility. Hardware manufacturers already disclaim as much responsibility as they possibly can.

This is about what companies call "perceived value". So long as customers "perceive" the value of a home router to be 50$, it will cost 50$. Even if - from the consumer's perspective - the difference between it and the 600$ router is code that other people wrote, it will still cost 50$.

If it does or if some court finds that it does then that will be the eventual end of the GPL,

If customers demand the rights afforded to them under the GPL, the GPL will become the norm. We consumers are not merely at the whim and mercy of corporations

Morality is a vague and indefined term that is used arebitrarily by people who feel that have something to gain.

Morality is a oft dismissed term by people who cannot think and who cannot render coherency. Everyone else knows that morality is a concern with the distinction between Right and Wrong.

If I purchase an accounting package, that I then need to use over the course of several years, and then suddenly and without warning, the company I bought it from goes out of business, and then just as suddenly some knucklehead decides to change daylight savings time. I should be able to- either by hiring a programmer, or by my own ability be able to modify the accounting package to account for this.

What possible perverted individual could you find that should suggest that I not have such a right? What kind of sick tool could have honesty and state that I do not have the right to keep my business running?

The legal system already agreed that I have the Right to do this, so companies - in order to protect perceived value started technologically restricting my Right.

No one like limits, civilization IS limits. Without them you would have a lot more to worry about than which vendor's license or copyright you would like to "morally" violate. Limits are necessary for civilization, civilization makes things practical. Balance is the key. Balance is compromise. Balance is in flux over time. Compromise is when all sides are equally unhappy. Chaos is when one side refused to be the least bit unhappy about anything... ever.

Sorry, you're wrong. You're probably stupid and ugly as well. I've already demonstrated that civilization agrees that I have a right to make these changes, and that the law protects me. I've also indicated examples of companies attempting to circumvent my rights, and also areas where they've managed to confuse enough people to confuse morality.

Of course nobody believes I shouldn't be able to modify the software in question. That's how we know what I'm describing is the Moral Right. But companies say they need to restrict that right, in order to protect other rights.

The question isn't whether I have the right to do what I want, because I already have those rights. The question is whether their rights are more important than my rights.

I realize that your travel in third-world countries makes you believe you understand Copyright, but it doesn't. Google the cases I listed before you try and suggest unilaterally that my

response makes no sense. . You don't understand Copyright, and you don't understand Law well enough to say that my response doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to you but that's obvious from your responses.

Re:*Users'* freedom

[DrRobert]

Again I agree with everything you have said. Your venom in that regard is entertaining and a little disheartening. You are expanding the topic beyond the scope of the initial comment. Whatever. The GPL gives you the source code and you have bought the device. Knock yourself out making things work. That is what I would do. That is what the GPL says about the licensed software. This arrangement has always allowed people to get what they want given the appropriate ability. Involving the hardare is a nonissue in the software license.

I envy you the world you think you live in.

Re:*Users'* freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

"But the intent of the GPL is not only to give you freedom to read the source, but freedom to modify it and use it in its intended environment."

Bullshit.

That would imply that I should have the right to use emacs in the original environment on which Stallman wrote it. Which I certainly do not - and no such promise is made.

It would also imply that GPL software is linked to a particular hardware/OS combination, which certainly is not the case.

It's increasingly clear that GPL 'means' whatever Kim Jong Stallman and his apparatchiks find most conveniently coercive.

I predict GPL 4 within 5 years, and it'll be even more coercive and restrictive.

"Comrades! You are not allowed to have potatoes! But enjoy your bread ration!"

Re:*Users'* freedom

[SanityInAnarchy]

That would imply that I should have the right to use emacs in the original environment on which Stallman wrote it. Which I certainly do not

Actually, assuming you have the rights to such a platform, then yes, you should have the right to use emacs in that environment.

Or are you saying that if you had a PDP-6 with ITS, you would expect not to have the right to run emacs, or to be restricted to a particular, vendor-approved version of emacs? If so, you don't know your history at all -- ITS source code is available on the web, such as it is. (If I remember right, the reason ITS was ditched was that it was not portable, and large chunks were assembly.)

Or wait -- you were assuming that a modern distribution of emacs must be able to run on the PDP-6? Or that it should come with a PDP-6 in the box? In other words, it's not enough that you get the software for free, you want hardware, too?

It would also imply that GPL software is linked to a particular hardware/OS combination, which certainly is not the case.

Not at all. All it means is that if you distribute a particular hardware/OS along with a chunk of GPL software, you may not use the hardware/OS to artificially restrict which version of that GPL software will run.

It does not mean that you cannot port software at all. How the fuck did you arrive at that conclusion, troll?

It just means that if you port it, you can only port it to a platform that allows you to run modified versions of that GPL'd software. And this can only possibly apply to someone who manufactures hardware/OSes, because anyone who is not the manufacturer, yet managed to do the port, implies that the platform is open enough to allow any GPL3 software that anyone can port.

It's actually insanely straightforward, if you understand the GPL and LGPL v2. For instance, the LGPLv2 requires that you either dynamically link with the LGPL'd library, or provide the object files (at least) to your own software -- thus ensuring that your software will work with any version of the LPGL libraries it uses, assuming a compatible API.

I predict GPL 4 within 5 years, and it'll be even more coercive and restrictive.

I'll bite. What about any version of the GPL is the least bit coercive? And what about the GPLv3 is at all restrictive, unless your name is Tivo?

RMS may be a zealot, but he's not the one trying to force you to use The One OS with The One Version of PowerDVD in order to play hi-def content.

A slashdot wedgie

[Anonymous Coward]

This is despicable sensationalism, and not what I'd expect from the FSF.

And yet sensationalism is exactly what I expect from Apple, and it's about the iPhone, which is sensational, but it's also about the GPL, and I wouldn't expect the FSF to do this, so it can't be sensational, and yet sensationalism makes sense when you're talki -- *brain explodes*

Re:"Run afoul?"

[mr_matticus]

Only if what's used is different from what Apple has already released, and only if the relevant portions of Webkit are, in fact, LGPL'd. From what I recall, that "KHTML fork" called Webkit includes some material outside the LGPL. Even if there's source code yet to be released, they've not necessarily "run afoul" of anything yet.

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.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Gorath99]

IANAL, but I'd say that it says so in section 4 (specifically 4d) of the LGPL v3 and sections 5 and 6 of the LGPL v2.1.

Excerpted from v3:

4. Combined Works.

You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications, if you also do each of the following:

[...]

d) Do one of the following:

* 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
* 1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version.

Excerpted from 2.1:

5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.

[...]

6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.

You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:

* a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
* b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
* c) Accompany the work with a wri

New license

[Enderandrew]

I think we do need a new license for OSS projects, and it isn't GPL v3. Consider this scenario:

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 technology that I wish to be fairly open, and allow the community to help develop. I want people to be able to see the libraries and API to extend the technology. But I also need to protect against forking and theft.

What we need is a license that is simple and short like a BSD license but provides these basic functionalities.

1 - The material may be distributed freely so long as the copyright and license agreement stays with it.
2 - The material may be altered for personal use and/or community development.
3 - If you choose to alter the material, if requested, you must pass your changes upstream to be reviewed.
4 - You may not distribute forks or derived materials without explicit permission. For this there would be a specific license to grant a "fork" which also must remain open to allow changes to drift back upstream.

Wouldn't a license like this be absolutely perfect for a great deal of scenarios?

Java, Flash, and PDF technologies could be protected from forks and theft, but we could compile plugins for any OS and architecture. This license would also be perfect for NVidia or ATI's drivers. ATI could open their drivers without fear of NVidia stealing technology, because NVidia can't fork it, or take part of it without explicit permission, and vice-versa. This would save these companies money by allowing the community to develop and maintain ports of their software products.

Imagine how this would apply to Tivo.

Let's say Tivo and the software they use is now part of license X. Since the source is open, you can install upgrades, recompile, or even tweak and extend the software on your personal box. Tivo wants to protect themselves that they aren't losing on the service. They can ask to see modifications that people make, which is a provision of the license, and thusly keep on pace with the hackers to make sure they aren't circumventing the Tivo service.

Honestly, if Tivo did such a thing, most of the hackers would buy Tivo boxes, and likely even pay for the service instead of circumventing it. Now they'd have an easier, and legal method to extend their boxes, fully supported by Tivo. Add new codecs, or features, or heck run an emulator on your Tivo box.

Seriously, someone with any legal knowledge should draft such a simple license.

Re:New license

[mr_matticus]

Point 3 causes a problem in that it stipulates oversight of code released "into the wild." It also affects secondary developers. Consider the following:

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 as proprietary would of course defeat the whole purpose, since the upstream developer couldn't be assured that the secondary developer really was sharing all the non-proprietary code. To pull a Rumsfeld, it would be a known unknown and an unknown unknown at the same time.

It really is quite difficult to write a license which *requires* a return of contribution from developers.

Re:New license

[Enderandrew]

Exactly my point.

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 than nothing" license. ATI or NVidia could open their drivers under this license, and it beats not releasing the code.

Re:New license

[mr_matticus]

Oops. I mistakenly assumed a symmetric relationship--i.e. the original developer would be required to release their source for developer consumption in its entirety. On second read, though, I can see how this would be beneficial for "voluntary release" of code, even if they wanted to "black box" certain components.

Re:New license

[Anonymous Coward]

It prevents someone else forking...
Sorta like how drunk driving laws stop people from driving drunk right?

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I recall much controversy being made about apple's fork because they made it almost impossible to use most of it in the original KHTML. Link me to somewhere where the actual developers talk about how wonderful Apple's contributions are, please. I doubt it, but then again a lot could have happened in the last year or so.

It isnt about GPLv3 violation.

[DrYak]

TFA isn't complaining that Apple is violating the GPLv3. That would be impossible, the GPLv3 was released only a couple of hours before and GPLv3-licensed code has yet to be produced and used by manufacturer.

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 refuse it. It's once again Tivoization and restricting end users' freedom.

TFA only ask an open question, about what will be the future impact of GPLv3 on manufacturers.

Re:It isnt about GPLv3 violation.

[mr_matticus]

It's not TFA where the problem lies. It's the Slashdot article summary.

Re:It isnt about GPLv3 violation.

[Ohreally_factor]

For the record, the editors made changes to the summary I submitted. . . . my original summary was much more inflammatory. I even used the pejorative term "Freetard". =)

The future is here

[eclectro]

Gnu/Apple

Re:The future is here

[tgv]

Does that mean the FSF will start sueing the Beatles as well?

Re:The future is here

[eclectro]

Does that mean the FSF will start sueing the Beatles as well? Hippies suing other hippies? Doubtful.

In a related story...

[jpellino]

Apple quakes in boots.

Just wanted to keep the pirate mood going.

Pro-FOSS is one thing. Anti-every-other-model is another.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[mr_matticus]

I normally hate using Wikipedia as a source, but it's concise and referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML

THEY HAVE NOT MADE THE GODDAMN ACCUSATION!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone implying so seems to be the FUD here. Seriously, the article doesn't say anything about it, the /. headline is WRONG, plain and simple, and now all the comments on /. are already about how horrible FSF is. Come the fuck on, people! This is beyond ridiculous.

Get the popcorn!

[xtracto]

Wow, two of the most defended groups featured together for a fight... it will be nice to read all the ultra-zealotry comments on slashdot hahah.

Well

[suv4x4]

Not the first time I'll say that (and I totally mean it):

FFS, FSF. WTF?

Nonsense

[tsa]

From the article: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner.

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.

Re:Nonsense

[Junior J. Junior III]

That has nothing to do with the device running on open source software and everything to do with the user-friendliness of the software.

I'm not sure that I agree. It depends on what you mean by "user friendly". When most people think of "user friendly" they think of an easy to use, easy to learn interface with good ergonomics. They ALSO think of a device that does what THEY want it to do, but a missing feature, though desired, is not necessarily user un-friendly.

From what I can see, not having firsthand experience, the iPhone sets a new standard (not a perfect standard, but definitely a higher one than had existed prior) for user friendliness in UI in the things that it does, but still lacks certain features. If the platform were open, it would be no big deal for someone else to come along and hack those features in. But it isn't, and they can't.

Re:Nonsense

[DaveCar]

The FSF have nothing to do with Open Source. The word "open" does not even appear on their website front page.

You appear to be labouring under a misapprehension as to what the Free Software Foundation is about.

Re:Nonsense

[JamesRose]

"Many of the open source advocates take it way too far in my opinion" I'm not sure you can really take that view when Apple is the subject of such obvious cult fanboyism, which is often over-zealous nad unneccessary

Re:Nonsense

[Altus]

Right, so its ok to spread fud, as long as it is about apple and not about open source. Classy.

Re:Nonsense

[TheGreek]

From what I can see, not having firsthand experience, the iPhone sets a new standard (not a perfect standard, but definitely a higher one than had existed prior) for user friendliness in UI in the things that it does,

Correct.

but still lacks certain features.

Also correct.

If the platform were open, it would be no big deal for someone else to come along and hack those features in. But it isn't, and they can't.

And, chances are, they wouldn't even if they could or else iPhone wouldn't have a raison d'être .

"Someone else" had a chance to step up to bat and make Phone UI not be a miserable pile of half-baked, hard-to-use shit. "Someone else" failed to do so. What reason do I or Apple have to think that "someone else" will be able to add functionality to iPhone without ruining the UI?

Re:Nonsense

[Junior J. Junior III]

What reason do I or Apple have to think that "someone else" will be able to add functionality to iPhone without ruining the UI?

Right, well, I'm sure someone else *could* do something that is ruinous to the UI.

But the thing about Freedom is, you still wouldn't be forced to use it. With Freedom, you use what works, and you can play with it to make it work better. Take an example from the System 7.x days, you had these things called Extensions. People could hack up an Extensions file that would extend the OS in some fashion. There were a lot of good ones. Some were crappy. They often caused problems. But no one forced you to make use of them; you could if you wanted, if you found it useful. iPhone's got nothing like that.

Re:Nonsense

[TheGreek]

People could hack up an Extensions file that would extend the OS in some fashion. There were a lot of good ones. Some were crappy. They often caused problems. But no one forced you to make use of them; you could if you wanted, if you found it useful.

And when an errant Extension caused the system to get hosed, the Extension itself was not always the first to receive the blame.

"Goddamned Mac, why do you keep crashing? God, Macs suck."

You really think that the average cellphone user has the technical aptitude necessary to distinguish between a "core OS problem" and a "third-party functionality problem?" All he or she knows is that their iPhone doesn't work anymore and GOD APPLE SUCKS I WILL TELL ALL MY FRIENDS.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

User JamesRose says: Apple is the subject of such obvious cult fanboyism, which is often over-zealous nad unneccessary

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Do you mean that people who buy Apple products are over-zealous and unneccessary? Are you saying that we don't have the right to an opinion?

The FSF can say what they want. Apple make quality products and their decision to pre-set the applications is just an effort to ensure good quality. If the FSF say Apple isn't free to do that then fine, I'm sure Apple can find better software code elsewhere anyway.

Re:Nonsense

[Junior J. Junior III]

Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that iPhone should run System 7. We've got OSes with protected memory and real multitasking now, you're not going to see Extension hell on a modern Mac. All I'm saying that installing applications isn't going to destroy Apple's image or make the iPhone suck.

If you installed a sucky app, or tweak the OS to your preference, you know you did it, you know who to blame -- either yourself or the provider of the app. This notion that Apple's image is so fragile that it can't be allowed to co-mingle with bits written by third parties is totally absurd.

So you can't run Skype on an iPhone to turn your expensive cell phone into a free mobile VOIP calling platform. Is that user unfriendly? No. Is it crippled? Yes. That's what I'm saying. FUDding that Skype might crash AT&T's network or make people hate Apple because of some Skype fuckup is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that Apple and AT&T don't want people making calls without paying hugely inflated prices for the privilege.

Re:Nonsense

[tsa]

I looked at their website (www.fsf.org) but I don't see much difference between 'free software' and 'open source' software the way it is normally distributed (under the GPL). So my confusion is logical I believe.

Re:Nonsense

[TheRaven64]

First, the FSF cares about Free Software, not Open Source. The two ideals have roughly the same outcomes, but quite different motivations. Open Source is about a development model, Free Software is about the rights of end users.

User friendliness is an excellent way of putting it. The FSF came about because RMS couldn't get a printer to work because the driver was closed (proprietary) and so he could not fix the bugs in it. The iPhone has bugs. It's inevitable, because all software[1] does. Those bugs (or missing features) may not affect you. If they don't, that's great. If they do, then you are beholden to Apple to fix them. If the iPhone were an open platform, you could either fix them yourself or get someone else to fix them for you.

Apple are well within their rights to release a proprietary product, and it's up to their customers whether they value the freedom to modify the code more or less than the freedom to use the code Apple wrote. The FSF have a very black-and-white view of this, and believe that closed code is worse than no code. Most people, I suspect, think working code is better than no code, and working open code is better than working closed code. This right ends, however, when Apple base their product on code someone else has written and licensed in such a way that it can not be used to remove freedoms from users. WebKit is an example. If I find a bug in WebKit on OS X, I can download the source, fix it, compile a new version of WebKit.framework, and replace the version on my system with it. Apple are required to permit this under the terms of the LGPL under which KHTML (on which WebKit is based) was released. If they didn't want to abide by these terms, their other choice was to write their own HTML engine. This, of course, would have been hugely more expensive. If I buy an iPhone, and find a bug in WebKit, then the LGPL states that I must be able to re-link the iPhone's browser against the version I've fixed. Apple don't seem to allow this (if they did, then I could also patch WebKit to automatically download and run a simple app from a hard-coded location, which would give me complete access to the system).

The FSF's position is that people releasing proprietary products should not expect any help in developing them from the Free Software community. This is why they oppose use of the BSD license (which I use for my own code).

[1] With the exception of some designed using formal methods and verified, costing orders of magnitude more, per line, than the vast majority of commercial code to develop.

Re:Nonsense

[TheGreek]

If you installed a sucky app, or tweak the OS to your preference, you know you did it, you know who to blame -- either yourself or the provider of the app. This notion that Apple's image is so fragile that it can't be allowed to co-mingle with bits written by third parties is totally absurd.

Apple likely evaluated the following two possibilities:

1) People complaining about poor-quality third-party software that might fuck up their iPhones.
2) People complaining about not being able to run third-party software on their iPhones.

And figured that #2 was a lot more acceptable given the device's target market--people who want a device that accomplishes a given set of tasks out of the box and does so with a UI that reinforces how miserable smartphone UI has been to this point.

So you can't run Skype on an iPhone to turn your expensive cell phone into a free mobile VOIP calling platform. Is that user unfriendly? No. Is it crippled? Yes. That's what I'm saying. FUDding that Skype might crash AT&T's network or make people hate Apple because of some Skype fuckup is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that Apple and AT&T don't want people making calls without paying hugely inflated prices for the privilege.

We have different definitions of "crippled."

Also, a completely-open-in-the-FSF-sense iPhone would allow people to broadcast garbage over the GSM/WiFi antennae if they wanted to. It might not take down AT&T's entire west coast network, but it can make life difficult for people in the neighborhood.

Re:Nonsense

[cdrguru]

Those bugs (or missing features) may not affect you. If they don't, that's great. If they do, then you are beholden to Apple to fix them. If the iPhone were an open platform, you could either fix them yourself or get someone else to fix them for you.

Oh come on. Any software developer that has any real experience with large-scale development efforts knows that is isn't quite that easy. I assure you that upon being presented with any project which has over 100,000 lines of C/C++ code nobody on the planet could find and fix a single non-obvious bug without understanding the code.

Understanding the code takes time. Lots of time, usually. More time than anyone in their right mind would want to spend fooling with a phone with probably a lot closer to 1,000,000 lines of code in it.

The idea that "anyone can look at it" is bounded by a number of things so it isn't just "anyone". How long would someone take to be an "expert" on the internals of the iPhone software? A year or two is probably a reasonable guess, although you might be able to get by in six months of effort to add a feature or two. Fixing non-obvious bugs would likely take longer.

Then we have the development/debug environment. Do you believe Apple engineers just use some sort of emulator on a Mac? Maybe for some trivial stuff but anything complicated that involves the hardware inferface is going to require a debug platform. We are probably talking about a separate piece of hardware with a JTAG port that was left off the consumer version to save $0.12. That is pretty much what Sony did for PS1. So then you need the special phone and a pretty expensive system to connect to it.

Open? I don't see any "open" here, nor do I see anything that even smells like "freedom". Consumer electronics aren't cheap to develop for, even if you are trying to do it on the cheap. I strongly suspect Apple didn't design the iPhone to have a cheap development environment but enabled their engineers to turn out a quality product that has very few mystery bugs left in it.

Re:Nonsense

[Blakey Rat]

Also, a completely-open-in-the-FSF-sense iPhone would allow people to broadcast garbage over the GSM/WiFi antennae if they wanted to. It might not take down AT&T's entire west coast network, but it can make life difficult for people in the neighborhood.

It would also get it banned in many countries by using frequencies it's not supposed to be using, if the local version of the FCC caught one of those hacked iPhones in the act. It's not worth the risk to Apple.

Re:Nonsense

[fsmunoz]

I understand you points, but I think TheRaven64 already addressed your concerns... the GPL (although BSD would be the same if they actually provided the source) doesn't assume that anybody can change things, I mean, if left by my own devices I would not be able to change much except the trivial stuff. It does however leave the door open for someone with interest, expertise, time and will to do it, which is how the most unbelievably complex stuff gets done. Even if only one or two developers find it interesting the beneficts will be for all. I mean, look at the original example: RMS's printer driver. I don't even know what it involved precisely, and I think that RMS himself wasn't exactly an expert on printers per se, but if he was allowed to change the driver it would help some guy with a similar printer who doesn't know how to code. We have people expoliting exotic bugs in save games to mod the Xbox, something that I consider complex and would not be able to do, but it would allow me to install Linux in it if I had one by following a simple HOWTO (or at least much simpler than to actually do the whole stuff).

This doesn't change anything regarding the merits or not of keeping it closed, its a different discussion.

It isn't your business

[Chemisor]

> 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.

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.

Re:It isn't your business

[Ajehals]

That statement is almost true, the problem would occur *if* someone else has produced code (which belongs to them) and has decided to distribute it under some specific terms and Apple violated those terms. It would be like me taking OSX from an intelMac and distributing it on a whitebox PC. I would be doing something that I am not allowed to do under the license, and copyright law also prevents me from doing.

What people seem to miss is that the GPL rants some rights that you do not have under copyright law, if you don't like the terms of the GPL then you are effectively stuck with the rights granted under copyright law, which would prevent you from modifying and distributing a product.

As for this specific case - I am sure that Apple were aware the GPL V3 was coming and took steps to prevent it being an issue, that's what risk analysts are for...

Re:It isn't your business

[Anonymous Coward]

"the iPhone belongs to Apple, not to you, and it is none of your business under what terms they decide to sell it."

That's not true. Some of the iPhone belongs to the people who wrote the included LGPL and BSD software; when you use those licenses you still have copyright on the code you've written, it is still yours. It is their business under what terms they decide to release it, and the people who chose the LGPL license may well not approve of what Apple is doing.

In addition, if I buy a piece of electronic equipment, it is mine. When it is within my possession I can do what I want with it.

Re:It isn't your business

[civilizedINTENSITY]

True enough for the GPLed code, but not so true for BSDed code. One could take a bunch of BSD code and release as GPLed code, or any license you wanted.

Re:It isn't your business

[larzluv]

The parent made no claim on the iPhone (in general).

As to "it is none of your business...": can't the parent, and me, too, and anybody else, dream and want Apple (and others) to make cooler, more-open, freer devices/software?

The parent, nor anybody else, can force Apple (or any other Company) to do/not do things with their devices/software. I think we're all well aware of that fact. Nor has anybody argued for/to that concept.

So, why do you argue about it? What dog to you have in that hunt? And if none, why is it somehow your business to get in the mix and chastise?

If you dislike the terms, don't buy it. Let the rest of us make our own decision.
Tell us: why do you fee threatened? The parent, nor anybody else, would ever dream of taking away your freedom.

Matter of fact, we all hope, and advocate (not "try to force") for a day that would grant you even more freedom and choice than to simply accept the scraps companies see fit to allow you...

-Larz

Just like RIAA

[Chemisor]

Borrowing RIAA's tactics, we can now accuse people of violations and assume they are guilty until proven innocent. Of course, when RIAA does it, it's bad; but when FSF does it, it must be good.

Re:Just like RIAA

[Cal Paterson]

Borrowing RIAA's tactics, we can now accuse people of violations and assume they are guilty until proven innocent. Of course, when RIAA does it, it's bad; but when FSF does it, it must be good.

What a ridiculous statement.

1. This isn't an "accusation" or legal threat, it's an open ended question.
2. The GPL is designed so that companies who use it have to share their modifications when they distribute.

THERE IS NO ACCUSATION.

[McDutchie]

If there isn't any evidence of GPL violation, why make the accusation?

No 'accusation' was made, and the idiots who moderated the parent up should be metamodded into oblivion.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[jabuzz]

In many legal juristictions it is possible for the copyright holder to later on retroactively change their mind and consequently the license. This is why for official FSF projects the copyright has to be assigned to the FSF. It is also why the KDE Free Qt foundation exists for example.

Go ahead, FSF...

[E-Lad]

Go ahead and try to enforce your own notion of Free. You'll only look like the RIAA and MPAA as they enforce their notion of Fair Use. Perhaps you'll demand to inspect the innards of the iPhone... perhaps not unlike obtaining a search warrant regarding music or movie files on someone's PC?

Irony... yeah. All in the name of "protection", I bet. Go BSD.

Re:Go ahead, FSF...

[Anonymous Coward]

Go BSD.

I have the strangest feeling that if you didn't put that part in, you would have been modded higher. You are right -- to an extent. The FSF usually hasn't acted like this in the past though.

Jumping to conclusions

[Chemisor]

> The DRM architecture in the iPhone takes away your freedom as an end user to
> 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

[Halo1]

There is no proof that there is any GPL software in the iPhone

No, but there is proof that there is LGPL code on it: WebKit. And the aspects this discussion is about (being able to upgrade the components under the (L)GPL) apply equally to the GPL and LGPL.

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.

/blockquote>

Yeah, it's really fairly easy to write a standards-compliant html rendering engine (not to mention one which at the same time also works with the large amount of badly written html out there).

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[paulpach]

LGPL version 3 does not apply to WebKit.

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:Jumping to conclusions

[Halo1]

LGPL version 3 does not apply to WebKit.

The FSF, nor the post that started this subthread, said so.

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.

You're missing the point and are not replying to anything I said or implied. The post that started this subthread said that the whole point of the (L)GPL is about protecting the end users' freedom to tinker. The (L)GPLv2 indeed allows companies to get around this by using DRM in certain ways, and (L)GPLv3 intends to close that loophole.

However, that's besides the point, since the only thing I replied to was Chemisor's complaint about "jumping to conclusions" regarding the statement:

> The DRM architecture in the iPhone takes away your freedom as an end user to
> play around with FLOSS inside the firmware.

He basically said there is no indication whatsoever that Apple is taking away any user freedom, because there is no proof that the iPhone contains FLOSS in the first place. I simply indicated that there most certainly is proof (to the extent that a blog post by Apple engineers on the webkit blog can constitute proof) that the iPhone contains FLOSS, and that consequently Apple /is/ taking away the freedom of end users to modify certain pieces of FLOSS code on the iPhone.

This is completely separate from GPLv2 vs GPLv3 (it's about the philosophy of the GPL: guarantee freedom of the end-user), from lawsuits, from "show us the code", from who contributed what code to khtml (and whether the copyright of code submitted to khtml remains with the submitter or is transfered to someone else), and from any FUD you want to read in this.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[Hamilton Lovecraft]

There is no proof that there is any GPL software in the iPhone

The legals screen on my iPhone goes on for pages and pages and pages and PAGES, and includes BSD, GPL, LGPL, and other licensing information. Some but not all of the software on the phone, therefore, is covered by GPL. However, there's no evidence that Apple has modified any of that GPL software in a way which would require them to open it up. You're perfectly welcome to take the same software that Apple took and put it on your own cell phone hardware.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[larzluv]

RTFA...

Neither the article, nor the FSF quote-giver claim the GLPv3 covers *anything*.

Sadly, you, and many other /.-ers either don't recognize, or don't care, that various "claims" aren't being made, but, rather, this is an article about linked themes.

The kind of un-hackability of the iPhone is one of the things v3 is meant to address. The goal is (from the FSF and its supporters) that all GPL code be moved to a v3 license. Obviously, v2 (or v1! ;) code has the same status, but newer, more up-to-date (via The Community) code would be.

Then TiVo and Apple (iPhone) wouldn't use **GPL** code and still lock the owners, the users, out of said **GPL'd** code/program - out from modifying, updating, whatever.

It's a dream, but for most of the biggest companies/their products, for the foreseeable future, this obviously won't come to be. As has already been said by others, they'd just use older forks, use other-licensed OSS, and/or go back to purely proprietary code.

v3 doesn't, in and of itself, change anything. But Stallman/FSF hope it can/will/might. If nothing else, it's the point that counts.

And I, for one, agree: it's my black box, damn it! Let me tinker, update, repair, modify, speed-up, secure, whatever, MY stuff! I already paid you, and there'll always be early adopters/mindless "consumers" to keep you afloat... they don't believe it, but I, and people like me, ARE NOT THEIR TARGET CUSTOMER! Not in the "treadmill" aspect, anyway. I choose when, how, what, and for what monetary threshold I'll make a purchase.

The point lost on them, and their apologists, is that those who are NOT like me don't want to, need to, and/nor like to "tinker" with their stuff.

So their desire to paranoidly "protect" their business plan at my expense floors - and GALLS - me.

But I digress. [SIGH] Sorry... :)
-Larz

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[nanosquid]

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?

The proof is that Apple says so: iPhone features a rich HTML client and Safari. Safari is a Cocoa wrapper around KHTML.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[mysidia]

The more iPhone-specific issue would be with them using LGPL code specifically, as they might be inclined (if not for LGPL's special restrictions), to suppose it was allowed, if they had not carefully read the LGPL.

The LGPL contains a restriction that the redistributed combined work be reverse-engineerable. By using LGPL software, which would normally be fine to include with software, on an ordinary computer. It is the unusual nature of their iPhone platform, the DRM, that would make them not in compliance, they would no longer be LGPL compliant due to GPL Section 6 requirements to provide all installation scripts for the software, and section 4 of the LGPL which reads in part:

You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications, if you also do each of the following: ... d) Do one of the following:

1. Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
2. Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version.

# e) Provide Installation Information, but only if you would otherwise be required to provide such information under section 6 of the GNU GPL, and only to the extent that such information is necessary to install and execute a modified version of the Combined Work produced by recombining or relinking the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version. (If you use option 4d0, the Installation Information must accompany the Minimal Corresponding Source and Corresponding Application Code. If you use option 4d1, you must provide the Installation Information in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.)

Due to the DMCA, implementing any DRM on the platform, and failing to provide the keys, is the same as including a term in a license agreement that prohibits reverse engineering to replace the linked application and/or installing a modified version of the library, as needed.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[nanosquid]

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.

No, it's not "shameless FUD". Even if Apple can get away with doing with KHTML what they did, through some clever reading of the LGPLv2, the fact is that Apple is clearly violating the explicit, stated intent of the LGPLv2. That alone, Apple deserves condemnation for. And it's not the first time they have done it. Apple likes to save money on R&D by using FOSS (that, incidentally, also means fewer jobs for programmers), while trying to avoid complying with license obligations. Without FOSS, OS X and iPhone wouldn't exist--Apple simply hasn't had the resources or expertise to do anything like it.

And to address abuses like this, the LGPLv3 contains language more specifically prohibiting what Apple did.

Now, whether Apple is actually violating the LGPLv2 in a legal sense, courts will have to decide. I don't think it's as clear as you say that what they are doing is OK, since even the LGPLv2 is quite explicit about allowing you to rebuild a working application.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[mysidia]

LGPL version 3 does not apply to WebKit.

Who says LGPL version 3 would have to apply for them to be in infringement if they were using others' LGPL'ed contributions in their product?

The requirements that you allow users to reverse-engineer a combined work so they can re-link with their own version of the library is not new.

The GPLv3 merely includes strong additional language to clarify that DRM cannot be utilized to prevent users from exercising the rights you as developer have to give them under the GPL.

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.

But not the only contributor.

It may be the beginnings of a fork when a contributor does it, but it's not like Apple has to approve of it. All someone must do is find the language in every file that states :
"...you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
And change that to "...you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."

And from then on, GPLv3 applies, when the license-updated copy is redistributed in the future, and the new version can no longer be distributed under GPLv2, except with permission of all the contributors to re-release under the v2 license.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[gig]

> Apple likes to save money on R&D by using FOSS

That is one of the stupidest fucking things I have ever heard. You're giving open source software a bad name.

Open source doesn't save Apple money, it saves their users money. I didn't have to buy a Web server for my Mac from Apple, compatible only with their Classic proprietary operating system and incompatible with the world. Instead I got Apache and PHP free with my Mac and if they weren't there I could have compiled them because the core OS in Mac OS X is deliberately Unix compatible for exactly that reason.

WebKit would have cost Apple the same money either open or closed. Because they did it open, it is 100x more compatible with the Web. Compare to Internet Explorer, which is constantly trying to crate a parallel de facto set of Web standards that cost Web developers billions of dollars per year to support.

Nokia's Web browser is based on WebKit, and that will be the main competition for the iPhone. If Nokia makes an iPhone killer somebody will write an article saying look open source was bad for Apple, they wrote Nokia's browser for them and got clobbered in the phone market. But the reality is that support for Web standards ought to be free to the browser maker, it is better for everyone if Nokia starts with WebKit and competes on usability and new UI features. It's better for Web developers, it's better for Nokia users, it's better for the whole Web because Web content ends up at the lowest common denominator. If the lowest common denominator on today's Web was WebKit/Gecko instead of IE the Web would be so much better than it is. For example, GIF is from the 1980's and has 1-bit transparency, but that is the only transparency that IE supported until 2006, so it is all over the fucking Web. If IE had proper PNG support since 1998 the Web would be all true-color, 8-bit mask by now. Instead, that graphical richness stayed in Photoshop and all Web users got a lower-quality Web.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[nanosquid]

That is one of the stupidest fucking things I have ever heard. You're giving open source software a bad name.

You really don't get it, do you? OS X is a layer of Apple-proprietary libraries on top of a big core of software that Apple and NeXT derived from open source. For Apple to write something like Mach kernel, the BSD userland, and the gcc compiler from scratch alone would have forced them to increase their R&D operation severalfold.

WebKit would have cost Apple the same money either open or closed. Because they did it open, it is 100x more compatible with the Web.

So you are saying that for the same amount of money as using KHTML, Apple could have developed a shitty, incompatible HTML component. Well, you're absolutely right. But they actually needed a standards-compliant HTML component, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because Safari wouldn't stand a chance otherwise. And for them to develop and maintain a proprietary HTML rendering component would be a lot more expensive than using an open source one that already works.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

"The kind of un-hackability of the iPhone is one of the things v3 is meant to address. The goal is (from the FSF and its supporters) that all GPL code be moved to a v3 license."

To coin a phrase, Stallman would like to put an icepick in the head of v2.

It is not paranoia if Apple has a history of it

[Orion Blastar]

Apple settled with Xerox in that the Macintosh and Macintosh OSX violated the IP of the Xerox Alto system developed in the 1970's, way before the Macintosh was made.

Eventually they agreed to settle and license the Xerox technology from the company that holds it.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Hal_Porter]

That's not necessarily true. If the KHTML license contains a clause that says that users (note not the copyright owners) may license it under GPL2 "or at their discretion under any later version", I could buy an iPhone opt for GPL3 and demand the right to upgrade KHTML to a later library version. Which means they need to give me their signing keys.

Yes, I know...

[gunny01]

*** BEGIN CLICHES ***

I, for one, welcome our new GPLv3 overlords

In Soviet Russia, GPL violates YOU!!!

Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of those...

1) Place GPL Software on iPhone

2) ???

3) Profit!

*** END CLICHES ***

Re:Yes, I know...

[Eunuchswear]

Actualy, this one:

Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of those...

sounds kinda interesting.

Tivoization...

[DrYak]

...and the usual TiVo-like excuse to this is :

"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 .HTML file that uses those custom tags to serve as a menu for this added functionality.
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 /. sigs, after all, GNU/Linux is nothing more than a printer driver gone terribly wrong).

Re:Tivoization...

[Eunuchswear]

"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 its self *is* valid."

If this were what Apple were planning to do it's a pretty dodgy interpretation given the (V2.1) LGPL's:

For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.

Re:Tivoization...

[Sandcastle]

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.

So, the software is (L)GPL so it needs to be possible to modify it - the hardware isn't covered by that license, so it doesn't have to run anything apple (or whoever) doesn't want it to run. What is wrong with this?

If you redo the software, you are free to run it anywhere else. If you can figure out how, you can hack your specific instance of the hardware and do as you will. Why should they (apple or others) make the hardware subject to fairly much the same rules (do as you want) as the software?

How can we continue to dismiss "GPL is viral" as FUD if this isn't the case?

Re:stupidists

[janrinok]

Anonymous Cowards yet again prove that they are anarchists, communists and general stupidists. These ideaology powered geeks out to change the world need to take a cold shower. They should also to RTFA......

BULLSHIT!

[Anonymous Coward]

And FUD. Jobs only says that they won't allow you to install software on the iPod. Nothing in violation of GPL/LGPL. Or are the LiveCDs that don't allow you to install anything also in violation?

It might be 'against the spirit of FSF', but do you think they care about the hurt feelings of a couple of geeks?

Re:BULLSHIT!

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"Jobs only says that they won't allow you to install software on the iPod. Nothing in violation of GPL/LGPL."

Actually that is the whole point of the anti-tivo-ization clause in v3: that disallowing the installation of your modifications makes having source code irrelevant.

Not a problem for Apple

[The Mysterious X]

If KHTML is relicensed under LGPL3, then all Apple will do is fork at the final LGPL2 version. It's not as if they lack the resources to maintain their own fork themselves, but what will happen is that KHTML will lose a major supporter. The v2 and v3 are incompatible, so any additions apple releases to their fork won't be able to be included, unless Apple allows the "version 2 or later" clause. I imagine the same will go for TiVo; they're building an embedded device, so there is no need for them to use the latest and greatest tool. They'll just fork their own, and fix any problems they come across.

Re:Not a problem for Apple

[KarmaMB84]

Apple proved they could handle a fork when they ended up surpassing the original by leaps and bounds. Apple actually suggested that KHTML be scrapped in favor of WebKit so I think they can handle it.

Apple says Mac OS X contains (L)GPL software

[DrYak]

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?

The difference is that no Linux marketing material ever touted "Contains genuine SCO software inside".
And SCO never said it was just sad that Linux had pieces of SCO Unix inside, they unleashed their lawyers' fury.

Here nobody is suing neither accusing Apple. They just pointing fact that before GPLv3 made explicit the signing stuff, tivoization was possible.
But as you say, Apple could actually come out with an announcement saying that iPhone's OS X and Mac OS X are different, not only for the obvious reason, but also because they dropped any GPLed code from it. As the firmware image is crypted, nobody has (yet) decoded it, and the burden of proof is on the side of the OSS community (just like when sigma designs used Xvid code. Except *that* was a clear GPLv2 violation).

They probably play on word interpretation

[DrYak]

For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.

Seems to me that "data" includes their signing keys

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 specifications.

That's why I personally think it was a good idea to explicitly mention the signing keys in GPLv3 :
- it makes explicit the LPGL situation
- it adds the same protection for base line GPL
- TiVo and Apple will have to come up with another trick to restrict people's freedom.

(Although another trick isn't impossible. Like : People can flash whatever firmware they want. But to decrypt and play DRM content, the DRM decryption is done by a on-board hardware chip that computes the key by XORing a key-token with data from specific memory locations which are likely to be different with a recompiled firmware. Some kind of AACS-like scheme, but where the device key used to get the media key is the firmware itself. This solution isn't non-crackable, but it is still another trick that TiVo and Apple may put up if they choose to abid to GPLv3)

Re:They probably play on word interpretation

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

However, you cannot RE-produce the binary on the phone. Which is what the license requires.

AFAIK, TIVO has not been in court, since the copyright owner (Linus in their case) doesn't care. So they can get away with claiming that it doesn't cover the keys (even though they are necessary to REproduce the executable). A judge may still disagree.

Re:They probably play on word interpretation

[KarmaMB84]

If it's a signature it's probably just attached or inserted somewhere in the file and doesn't actually alter the executable portion in any way so I don't know if a judge would buy "we can't reproduce the executable". This is a security feature to ensure that binaries don't get tainted. It's the same reason it would be stupid to require vendors give up their private keys since it would make the entire system useless.

The sooner everyone realizes RMS and the FSF don't give a fuck about security, developers and even users the better.

Re:They probably play on word interpretation

[nanosquid]

If it's a signature it's probably just attached or inserted somewhere in the file and doesn't actually alter the executable portion in any way so I don't know if a judge would buy "we can't reproduce the executable".

What matters is not whether there is some obscure way in which you can interpret the license to mean one thing or another, what matters is what the intent of the license is and how both parties understood it. The LGPL is quite clear about its intent: users should be able to modify the covered code and use the modified version as part of the whole. The license keys are necessary for that.

Apple may be able to claim extreme stupidity and get away with it with (L)GPLv2, but that's why (L)GPLv3 clarifies this point further.

Re:They probably play on word interpretation

[TheoMurpse]

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.

Heh. Not a single comma in that sentence was necessary. I don't know if anyone else will find that funny, but as a punctuation nerd, I sure did.

Re:They probably play on word interpretation

[that this is not und]

I don't know if anyone else will find that funny, but as a punctuation nerd, I sure did.

Heh. Not a single comma in that sentence was necessary. I don't know if anybody else will find that funny but as a punctuation nerd I sure did.

Re:They probably play on word interpretation

[TheoMurpse]

Argh, you got me! However, the Manual of Usage and Style does say both of my commas are correct (albeit discretionary):

Rule 1.18(a): "Use a comma before a conjunction (e.g., but) linking the independent clauses in a compound sentence"
Rule 1.19(a): "Use a comma to set off introductory words, phrases, or dependent clauses."

I'm an editor of a journal, so I'm used to looking up those rules fast. I didn't spend more than 10 seconds pulling them up, so don't think I just spent a while trying to find justification for my commas. In any case, the other guy used four commas. I think one was permitted and the other three are just flat out wrong, but I don't care enough to look back at it. The cases are different.

But to be fair: you got me and I laughed at the situation. Yesterday I got caught with a typo when I was correcting someone's pretentious Latin, too. It just makes this all the more fun!

Apple is worth picking a fight with?

[Anonymous Coward]

But when Virgin was in violation with the WebPlayer - the people who held GPLed copyrights could not be bothered to enforce their "rights".

But right now this is just posturing - lets see if there is a violation, then will the GPLers bother to sue.

GPL is a *software* license

[Prototerm]

I know I'm going to get flamed for this response, but I just cannot let it go.

How is it that a license to distribute *software* has the right (legal or moral) to force hardware manufacturers to effectively open-source the *hardware* as well? I thought the whole purpose of the GPL was to give your code-changes back to the community so that everyone can benefit from them, *not* guarantee that any particular hardware device can be hacked. IMHO, this is carrying things much too far, and will harm the FOSS movement in the long run. Right now, I bet Apple's glad it based its OS on BSD, instead of using Linux as Tivo did.

Re:GPL is a *software* license

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is all about ensuring user's retain control over their machines.

Apparently you don't know the famous incident between Richard Stallman and a printer, that allegedly gave birth to the Free Software Movement.

Read about it here.

Re:GPL is a *software* license

[b1ufox]

And you are among those ignorant users who do not understand it is not *Linux* which forces you to open your hardware.So you can use Linux and avoid any tinkering till you publish the changes in Linux.

FYI Linux is not RMS's property and yes it is the *kernel* which does not forces you to open the hardware.

And yes, don't flame me on unless you are a kernel developer, are you?I bet not.

Re:GPL is a *software* license

[TheRaven64]

I thought the whole purpose of the GPL was to give your code-changes back to the community so that everyone can benefit from them The GPL says absolutely nothing about 'the community.' The GPL exists to ensure that, if you distribute GPL'd code, you have to give the people to whom you distribute it the same four freedoms you enjoyed. You can take public GPL'd code and modify it, then sell it to your customers without ever giving anything back to the community. What you can't do is prevent your customers from then giving the changes back to the community.

Since the GPL is about end user freedom, it makes sense that it would also apply to hardware running GPL'd software. If you distribute GPL'd software on a particular device which is designed to only run your specific version then you are removing one of the freedoms (the freedom to adapt the code to your own purpose) from the end user. GPLv2 was not explicit about this, GPLv3 is.

Re:GPL is a *software* license

[Eunuchswear]

You maybe weren't aware that one of the major sources of the the whole Free (not "open") Software movement was a printer that RMS couldn't get a driver for 'cos the driver was only available as a compiled object for a machine RMS didn't have.

Software without hardware as useless as hardware without software.

Re:GPL is a *software* license

[Anonymous Coward]

I own code that is copyright lgpl and gpl and I am happy about the 3.0 release. If you as a hardware vendor do not like my requirements dont use my damn code. I not only want people to be able to read and study my code, but to be able to hack and rebuild it. If you HAVE THE NERVE to take MY CODE and stick it on your hardware, you are the one that needs to respect my license request. Write your own damn code for your own hardware if you have a problem with my wishes.

Flame off.

Fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

FSF and MS are two sides of the same bad penny.

Tinkering = Voided Warranty

[goldspider]

I think that Apple should allow users to tinker with the internal workings of the iPhone, but they would be justified in cancelling the warranty of modified devices.

Is the typical Slashdot tinkerer willing to assume that risk on a device that costs so much?

Re:Tinkering = Voided Warranty

[Eunuchswear]

Why would Apple need to do this? Other phone manufacturers don't. Or is their phone uniquely fragile?

Re:Tinkering = Voided Warranty

[goldspider]

What other phone manufacturers allows people to modify their phones' software?

Re:Tinkering = Voided Warranty

[Anonymous Coward]

Any of them if you try hard enough. Only the iPhone has DRM to ensure that you don't.

Re:Tinkering = Voided Warranty

[Eunuchswear]

I can write compile and load anything I like on my phone.

I can buy adn load software if I can't be bothered to write it.

I don't see why Jobs thinks his phone and AT&T's network is so fragile that it's not possible for him.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Anonymous Coward]

5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License. However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables. That is in contradiction with US Copyright law. Linking is an automated process - a "mechanical translation" - as such it cannot, under US Copyright law, create a derivative work. And you are forgetting that developers can shoose to upgrade the LGPL to the GPL - which is what I believe Apple did with KHTML when creating "WebKit". Since the "Linking creates a derivative work" language is only in the LGPL the clause may not apply at all.

It IS compliant ...

[mr_death]

... but there is a whole herd of people who say "violates the spirit of the GPL" when they mean "we don't like the way you're doing it". Those people can whine all they want, but if a company is in compliance with the license, the whiners don't have a leg to stand on.

Oh Scary...

[Goth Biker Babe]

What a load of old bollocks. Firstly the software will have been written months ago. Secondly the licence isn't being applied retrospectively and so what if a piece of code is GPL-3 now and wouldn't have been a week ago and so who gives a shit. Finally watch for all the branched projects as they get forked so that the GPL-2 variants stick around.

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.

Re:Oh Scary...

[3p1ph4ny]

Of course! Your average /.er has lots of disposable income; mom pays all of the living expenses.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[splortnik2003]

Oh good lord. The party using the library (Apple) is a "user".

consumer reply

[Pliep]

SlashDotters seem to get entangled in the n-millionth discussion on "Freedom" and open software.

Consumers / potential iPhone-buyers however just say things "I would like to own an iPod that can also make calls" and simply buy one.

No interest in Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

it shows that the future of open-source is being led by zealots

And who might those zealots be, seeing as neither RMS nor Peter Brown have any interest in Open Source at all?

The FSF is interested only in Free Software, as they've stated a million times.

If you want to find Open Source zealots, you need to head over to the Open Source Initiative.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Anonymous Coward]

That just means they have to provide the source to the library. I think it's a stretch to say they have to provide physical means to modify their phone - particularly if they can demonstrate that you _would_ be able to use modified libraries if you could install software on it.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Eunuchswear]

And you are forgetting that developers can shoose to upgrade the LGPL to the GPL - which is what I believe Apple did with KHTML when creating "WebKit". Since the "Linking creates a derivative work" language is only in the LGPL the clause may not apply at all.

WebKit is open source software with portions licensed under the LGPL and BSD licenses. Complete license and copyright information can be found within the code.

http://webkit.org/coding/lgpl-license.html

MontaVista Linux also used in cellphones

[Anonymous Coward]

The Motorola A760 (http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS7780859583.html/) and other cellphones were running MontaVista Linux as far back as 2003/2004.

When a new version of GCC or the kernel was released, were owners of these cellphones able to "play around with FLOSS inside the firmware"? Surely the several years that cellphones have been running MontaVista Linux have been enough to produce an answer to that question.

So why hasn't the FSF campaigned against those Linux cellphones taking away the freedoms the GPL was supposed to grant?

Re:MontaVista Linux also used in cellphones

[Eunuchswear]

http://a760.sourceforge.net/

Freedom...to use something else, then.

[Benanov]

No one is putting a gun to your head and demanding that you use this code, you know. You don't like the terms, don't use the software! You do have the freedom not to use it; you get your desired permissiveness, act the opportunity costs of having to build or find similar code.

The "forced publication" you speak of is the cost of using GPL'd software--if you do not like those terms, pay someone else something else. You didn't "simply" use GPL code--you must make a concious decision to.

It's not like copy-paste happens on accident, unless your mousing skills really suck under X.

Re:Freedom...to use something else, then.

[mr_matticus]

No one is putting a gun to your head and demanding that you use this code, you know. You don't like the terms, don't use the software! That is not the goddamned point. I don't know how many times it has to be said to you thickheaded fools, but I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TERMS OF THE GPL. They're free to have that license and all of its restrictions, and that is perfectly acceptable. The problem, as my post clearly states to anyone with half a brain, is the "join us or die" approach that the moronic zealots take to alternative licensing arrangements. The GPL is fine. So are closed-source licenses. They are both valid, appropriate, fair licensing terms and should be allowed freely. The RMS zealots should not care if someone who doesn't use GPL code chooses a different license. Instead, they throw their weight around and attack and intimidate anyone who chooses to use different tools and different licenses.

WRONG analogy

[mangu]

If I invite you over for wine and cheese, I didn't sign up to have you clear out my whole wine cellar and order $1700 cheese wheels from Italy on my dime, you know?

You got it all reversed. In this case, Jobs is inviting us to eat OUR wine and OUR cheese. It's OK for him to develop code and do whatever he wants with it, but if he takes software *other* people developed he cannot order $1700 cheese wheels from Italy on *OUR* dime.

A better analogy would be this: someone invited everyone to a big cheese and wine party. Now Steve Jobs wants to go to this party and he's saying: "Oh, do you mean the cheese and wine are free? Then this means I can take ALL of this cheese and wine for MYSELF, because if I cannot do this then the cheese and wine aren't really free, are they?"

Re:WRONG analogy

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You got it all reversed. In this case, Jobs is inviting us to eat OUR wine and OUR cheese.

Wait we have an open source iPhone solution complete with hardware and everything! Cool... Oh wait, KHTML does not equate to an iPhone... damn.

Oh maybe you mean't to say that Apple uses GPL code without giving back modifications... hmmm, I don't think that's right either.

Re:WRONG analogy

[mr_matticus]

Wrong. All of you GPL nuts keeps insisting that "you can do ANYTHING you want with GPL code; this is more 'free' than licensing some proprietary code." GPL code IS an open invitation to use everything, only they're asking that if you take one bottle of GPL wine or a thousand, you MUST allow anyone else to take as much of your wine as they want.

That's neither free nor fair. GPL code isn't given away from of anything. It can be more restrictive than proprietary code because of that viral nature. It is not the be-all, end-all. Period. It is one perfectly valid option among several other perfectly valid options for software development.

Re:WRONG analogy

[that this is not und]

Now Steve Jobs wants to go to this party and he's saying:

When and where did Steve Jobs take ALL the software, say it was HIS and keep it exclusively for his benefit?

You're throwing up scarecrows.

Slashization...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple is afraid of copyright infringement, even if the Bluetooth falls clearly under the same provision as home taping in most juridictions)..."

Er, no it doesn't. Fair use doesn't mean that you can share your MP3's with everyone else. Technologically you can. Legally and ethically you can't.

Re:Slashization...

[1110110001]

Er, no it doesn't. Fair use doesn't mean that you can share your MP3's with everyone else. Technologically you can. Legally and ethically you can't. Of course you can (depending on the content of the MP3). My music is released as MP3 or OGG Vorbis under a creative common license. There is nothing ethically stopping you from sharing. I would be pissed if you don't (if you like it).

You do not have the freedom to destroy a freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

The "freedom" that Stallman and his ilk babble on about really is a thinly disguised platform for socialism.

And the "freedom" that you and your anti-GPL ilk babble on about is a thinly disguised money grab, riding on the back of community developers for your exclusive profit.

Moreover, following on from the parent's "your freedom does not include the freedom to take mine away", your position is not unlike that of a murderer claiming that his right to kill is part of his "freedom". No it is not, because it tramples on the rights of others to not be killed.

Well, exactly the same logic holds for free software: you are trying to claim as your "freedom" the denial of freedom to others, and that is simply not acceptable to anyone with half a brain cell and an understanding of symmetry.

Unless you do have the morals of a wilful murderer, that is. Then you wouldn't see the logic of the GPL at all.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Hal_Porter]

Oh good lord. The party using the library (Apple) is a "user".

If that were true then Tivo would be the user too and they could just opt not to use GPL3. Which would make the whole change pointless.

GPL3 only works if the the people that buy products are the users, not the companies who sell them, because Tivo and Apple want to keep products locked down and the whole point to the GPL3 is that to stop them doing that. If Linux had been licensed under "version 2 or later" I could opt to license it under that and gain whatever additional rights I'd get under v3.

Too bad Stallman can't come up with anything cool

[bobalu]

Too bad Stallman can't come up with anything cool himself.

He and the FSF are irrelevant and useless at this point.

Ignorance is not an excuse ...

[Midnight Thunder]

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!

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/
  - With WebKit (a fork of KHTML), and engine used by Safari, they do so: http://webkit.org/

and there is also more: http://developer.apple.com/opensource/

Sure in some cases the source is not always in an easy to compile form, but they are publishing it. As for the rest of the OS, since it is running in user space then as long as it is not based on an GPL type open source license, then there too there is no need to publish the source code.

Re:Ignorance is not an excuse ...

[gnud]

I'll take this slow, so maybe you will understand:
This article is about the iPhone.
The iPhone uses the WebKit library (LGPL), and maybe others.
Noone claims Apple is not offering source code for the FOSS projects they utilize.
But with (L)GPL v3 there will be specific clauses requiring that developers like apple and tivo let you recompile and use a interface-compatible version on the hardware they use. This is very much in the spirit of libre software.

Steve jobs does not think that is a good idea. Therefore, he does clearly not agree with the spirit of libre software.
Note that this might not be a legal issue per se, eg if WebKit stays gplv2. But, the GPs point is valid anyway.

Grand conclusion: GP has a point, you dont.

Re:Ignorance is not an excuse ...

[heinousjay]

I'll go fast, because you're an arrogant prick

Apple is under no obligation to apply version 3. They already have the software they need on the iPhone, and they can just keep using what was covered under version 2 and not bother with any changed that fall under the scope of the license change.

Re:Ignorance is not an excuse ...

[gnud]

You're right. I said as much in my post. Your GP still has a point. It's against the SPIRIT of libre software. He didnt say it was against the letter of the current license text, neither did I. Some people claim it might be, but thats another discussion altogether, and since I'm not familiar with the US justice system I won't enter into it.

Re:Ignorance is not an excuse ...

[Altus]

So your saying that GPL v3 changes the rules and if Steve doesn't like those rules then he shouldn't use LGPL v2 software?

wait, what?

Apple agreed to certain things when the chose to use that software, they comply with the license of that software. You don't get to change the rules on them after the fact. The code they have is released under a license that lets them use it the way they want to and thats that. At some point there will be a new version of that software that is released under a new license that Apple will not likely agree too, but all they have to do is not use that new version.

They will fork the old version and continue to develop it and chances are the community at large will no longer benefit from their work because they wont use the new license.

Not everyone even agrees that GPL v3 is actually all that and a bag of chips. If there isn't even consensus in the "community" about what is "libre" software you cant go telling me that Steve doesn't live up to it. Hell even linus has been apprehensive about GPL3, are you going to call him out as an enemy of "libre" software.

Re:Ignorance is not an excuse ...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Apple is under no obligation to move from GPL2 to GPL3, but the codebase might just leave them behind. Note: it was suggested in a posting to the article that one can view all the iPhone licenses on a screen, and that both GPL and LGPL showed up. Can anyone confirm this? And what in the iPhone is GPL?

Re:Ignorance is not an excuse ...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

First, unless we know how much GPLed code Apple is using, we don't know how much effort would be required for Apple to attempt to maintain their own v2 forks that are up to date with new v3 software (and have implemented new features cleanly, which means "coding around" the published implementation.)

In terms of whether Linus is an enemy of Free Software: I don't think many would really consider him a friend, but rather more like an acquaintance who used to be closer back in the day.

Apple is working to make RMS irrelevant

[pem]

Apple's biggest exposure to RMS is the toolchain.

They have hired Chris Lattner, one of the lead developers of LLVM, which is an optimizing compiler. The bulk of LLVM is released under a BSD-like license, but for now it uses a front end borrowed from GCC.

But Apple is busy fixing that, too.

Re:Apple is working to make RMS irrelevant

[fsmunoz]

Yes, because Jobs was ver sad when he realized that to use GCC for NextStep he actually had to comply with the licence. The FSF - and RMS in particulary - wasn't interested in "special deals", exceptions and the like. So, since they needed a compiler, they had to release the changes that made Objective-C support possible for general use. I suppose Jobs wasn't very happy with that.

As for LLVM and their wish to replace GCC, doesn't surprise me and all the best to them. I'm sure it will be good news for the BSD's, since I have no doubt that Apple will share its work with them out of the goodness of its heart under a BSD licence. As for GCC itself, nothing changes, except support for Objective-C which could impact GNUstep.

A neat trick in the wording

[Saint Fnordius]

After carefully reading the wording of the statement, I see a neat little trick: after all, if the compiler that Apple uses is GPL-based, then the software is "built with" GPL-covered software without actually containing GPL-covered code. A subtle, potentially misleading choice of words...naughty!

Re:A neat trick in the wording

[samkass]

Except that's probably not even true. Apple has done extensive work making their own C/C++/ObjC front-end for LLVM that doesn't use GCC. Since the iPhone is ARM-based, I would put even money on it being one of the LLVM-built releases.

Here's the FSF quote, where's the BSD one?

[argent]

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. 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."

That's Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF, saying "will be interesting to see".

BSD zealot strikes again?

I see no references to BSD in the original announcement, the article referenced from slashdot, or the summary.

Comment poster != Article writer != BSD Zealot.

Sheesh.

WebKit is partially LGPL...

[niteice]

...and assuming that the iPhone uses WebKit, isn't the WebKit developer site sufficient?

Re:You do not have the freedom to destroy a freedo

[Anonymous Coward]

And the "freedom" that you and your anti-GPL ilk babble on about is a thinly disguised money grab

And yet, ironically, it is you who copies part of my comment and just changes a couple of words. Consider if my comment had been subject to a license similar to the GPL. Then by now I would own your ass. All in the name of "freedom" of course.

Oh and socialism is the biggest money-grab of them all, believe me.

I won't respond to any of the murder stuff; please use a less hyperbolic simile if you have a point to make.

Discourage companies from supporting you much?

[argent]

Personally, I think Apple made a mistake releasing the iPhone without a native API. I won't be buying one because of it, and I agree that it's inconsistent with the spirit of the GPLv2... but Apple's totally compliant with the letter of the license they agreed to when they incorporated KHTML in Safari. Not only that, but they have completely and utterly bent over backwards for the free and open source software community.

* They were only obligated by the GPL to release the shipped versions of KHTML. When they were attacked for not going *far* beyond their obligations, what did they do? They went ahead and did it.

* Not only that, but they're continuing to release updates to the rest of the open source software they're using, not just the GPLed stuff.

* And they're open-sourcing their own code.

* And they've been doing this all the way back to Mac OS X 10.0.

Yes, I know Apple has a history of being downright weird about secrecy. That makes this long term commitment to free and open source software even more encouraging.

So what's the FSF do? Make veiled threats about what Apple might be hiding in the iPhone... even though it's all hidden in plain sight if you care to look.

More FSF FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

"crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner"

What? My current cellphone, which I have zero control over in terms of what software it runs, works just fine in my interests. I really wish the FSF guys would focus on Problems That Actually Matter, and stop creating issues where none really exist.

Re:More FSF FUD

[DragonTHC]

more AC fud.

problems that actually matter include releasing products that use GPL'd code without releasing the source code.

It's like saying that the GPL is ok for people who choose to follow it, but apple is above following licensing terms.

defending corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

there is really no need for you to defend a corporation, or their rights to a 95 copyright monopoly. They have teams of lawyers that can buy laws, and teams of marketting people that can buy public support.

Screw the iPhone

[alexandre]

Go and help real projects like OpenMoko instead of crappy consumer-whore oriented product like the iPhone...

Again, I don't get it.

[rockhome]

I've been saying it for weeks, and I still don't understand why just having the source isn't enough.

The requirements of the GPL have been to release the source, and TiVo has done so, and I assume
Apple has done so for whatever GPL software they have modified.

I don't understand why these companies need to be forced to open their platforms to arbitrary development.
This is a question that ought to be left up to the market decide whether such a model is viable. The devices
don't take away anyone's freedom because those that want the freedom to run arbitrary software should simply
not purchase them.

The source is more valuable than the device, the source will include any novel changes and can be rebuilt to
run a platform of the user's choosing. Why the FSF can't reconcile itself that TiVo, Apple, et al are
still contributing back to the community regardless of thestate of the devices they produce.

Re:Again, I don't get it.

[rahvin112]

Actually it should be left to the developer of the code to choose how his/her code is used. By providing GPL3 the FSF provides developers the option to say "if you use my code you have to allow open access". I suspect that a lot of GPL developers will move to version 3. That is where the FSF's question comes about, because if the major packages all go GPL3 then 5 years down the road the apple's and Tivo's of the world are going to still be stuck running 2007 code that they maintain themselves. Not only that but they can no longer use the bug fixes (and will actually have to come up with their own fix that is independent of and not reliant on the fix prepared by the GPL3 software) and updates in the software provided by the community. Today that doesn't mean anything, but 5 years down the road it will mean something and it could be extremely negative for some of these commercial companies that want to keep their code from being "tampered" with.

If the GPL3 does change things in this manner, then either the commercial companies bail out of linux and GPL code or they have to make it so the tinkerers out there can modify the code on the device they purchased. If it's the later then everyone wins, and if it's the former it would be difficult to predict what will happen, most likely the proprietary OS's will see a resurgence as the device manufacturers will believe they are being forced into no longer using GPL software.

Or another example

[Anonymous Coward]

when you give your daughter a mobile phone for her security, aren't you worried that some worker at the phone company will find out where your child goes every minute of the day?

What better way to stalk children than to be the viewer in a serveilance network...

Thank goodness

[augustz]

Thank goodness all the other phones are completely open and don't put you in a little sandbox!

What's weird to me is that Apple generally products which are somewhat more open, fairer, cleaner then their crappy competitors (I tried using the music services that came before itunes, ghastly by and large) and gets jumped all over. The restrictions on fairplay were loads better then the early music store restrictions / subscriptions. I did like 20

It's not clear to me that the iphone is more crippled then other phones, and it's not clear to me that it has GPLv3 software. So probably better to let it rest, or if you have a concern approach apple and ask if you think it does. They've been pretty careful so far to stay away from GPL items in the core.

GPL - a short summary

[ChrisA90278]

For those who have not actually read the GPL here is the shortest summary I can think of:

"You can use this for free so long as you also agree to give it away free"

The user is not really giving up any rights. If not for the GPL he would not
be able to re-distribute my copyrighted work in any way. So I use GPL and
give him a limited method where if he wants he can re-distribute my work.
Without the GPL he does not even have that limited right

You can argue the GPL is not "100% free" because it only gives users limited rights
and I could have simply placed the work in the public domain. You'd be
correct. I choose to use the GPL if I want to be sure the EVERYONE can get
a free copy of my work even if they did not get it from me. Also I simply
don't want someone making money off my work and GPL prevents that.

Re:GPL - a short summary

[Titoxd]

Also I simply don't want someone making money off my work and GPL prevents that. Then stop using the GPL immediately, as the GPL allows commercial reuse.

Back to the subject at hand: Even if the iPhone had GPL'd software, it means nothing. Apple does not need to open the iPhone/OS X API; all they need to do is to point to a source repository somewhere on the net. In fact, if they did not modify the source code at all, they only need to point to your repo to satisfy the GPL requirements. The GPL source redistribution clauses are only triggered when you are redistributing modified software.

/. reaction is remarkably overblown.

[jbn-o]

I'd be surprised if this were a veiled accusation. That you and other posters here feel the need to spell so much of it out tells me there is what the FSF says there is: a declaration of interest. I recall the FSF being much more clear about NeXT's distribution of GCC (a GPL'd program) back when NeXT distributed their GCC derivative without simultaneously distributing complete corresponding source code or a written promise for said source code. NeXT later remedied the situation by distributing said source code.

The FSF has a history of giving copyright infringers an opportunity to do right and avoid going to court. Part of the GPLv3 gives infringers a chance to behave in accordance with the license. Another section of GPLv3 makes non-infringers out of BitTorrent sharers because they were technically infringing under GPLv2. Eben Moglen has written essays on how he enforced the GPL under Stallman's directive to never favor litigation over compliance.

I can imagine that the FSF are indeed interested to see to what extent GPL'd code is used in Apple's products today.

Funny thing

[Swift2001]

Microsoft makes an announcement of "230" -- or whatever it was -- copyright violations in Linux. I denounce it as obvious FUD and legal intimidation. The upshot is, more companies pay Microsoft money not to prosecute them for things that Microsoft never shows, because people quaver in fear when they point a lawyer at them.

Now, the GPL people are doing exactly the same thing with the iPhone. "There are copyright violations," they say, though they don't specify them. What do they want Apple to do, exactly?

I'm quite prepared to have the platform closed at first. Rumors abound, among them that the OS X SDK is ready, but the Windows SDK has a long way to go. You know, Apple invested a huge amount of time and money in the new platform. It's up to them to say when and how it can be opened.

Picked the wrong time...

[Anonymous Coward]

to do saber rattling. Apple is the industry darling at the moment. Some vague and likely spurious claims about how the iPhone violates the GPLv3 are not going to accrue any more rapport for FSF. In fact, since the GPLv3 is already on shaky ground in the minds of many, this probably serves to only magnify that doubt. I guess letting lunatics take care of them self is a pretty good stratagem.

Darwin

[nurb432]

Isn't this how we managed to piss off Apple and have them pull out of contributing to opendarwin?

troll my ass, it's completely true

[bobalu]

And you bloody well know it.

The guy's been living on his past work for like 20 years now.

He should just pull the gerbils out of his ass and go away.

Here is what is GPLd on the iPhone

[Stu Charlton]

This is from the "Settings -> General -> About -> Legal" screen inside the iPhone, which lists all software licenses (it's a huge list, lots of open source software too). They include full copies of the GPL v2 and LGPL v2 on this screen.

GPLv2:
- libgcc
- libstdc++

LGPLv2:
- libiconv
- ncurses
- KHTML
- SpiderMonkey and DateCode.cpp
- PCRE

There are lots of other licenses from particular libraries and/or programs, some proprietary, some free, but the above are what I noticed that referred to GPL or LGPL.

I assume the libgcc and libstdc++ are used for other open source GNU programs, and Apple is using another library (they embed the AT&T C Library, for example) for their proprietary iPhone applications, though this probably needs verification.

Re:Here is what is GPLd on the iPhone

[Eunuchswear]

It's got ncurses? Wierd. Is there a vt100 in there somewhere?

Re:Here is what is GPLd on the iPhone

[Stu Charlton]

I bet the developer's build had a shell terminal. It could just be stuff they didnt bother removing from base OS X.

Working against the interests of the owner??

[Jeremy_Bee]

Indeed.

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 movement and I learned many years ago that you can't really control what other people are going to do with stuff you give them for free.

Couldn't the FSF think of something, I don't know... positive to say?

For instance, the last time I checked, Apple was one of the main supporters and developers behind the open source WebKit, as well as open Internet standards in general. Or how about the belief many people have that the iPhone is likely to be absolutely pivotal in terms of promoting open source, and open standards based internet development?

Instead, we get petty nay-saying and mud-slinging, and from the FSF executive no less. How mature.

Re:Working against the interests of the owner??

[cbreaker]

When Apple released their changes to KHTML for WebKit, it was basically unusable for the KDE team, for that example.

Apple uses a lot of open source code, and have gotten a LOT of their operating system for absolutely nothing. They built a decent OS with the parts, and then locked it down to hell.

Apple does the bare minimum to have the right to use the software that they do. There's nothing wrong with it legally, and it proves that you can use GPL and LGPL code in commercial products. But to say that because the use this code, they somehow support Free Software, is laughable.

Re:Working against the interests of the owner??

[Jeremy_Bee]

If I implied that Apple supports the FSF, I was mistaken. Obviously they do not support the goals and ideals of FSF.

Apple *does* support open source software and *does* make contributions. Apple also supports open standards, especially Internet standards and is almost leading the fight against Microsoft in that regard in that they are the only computer/device manufacturer or proprietary software maker of any note that consistently supports both choice and open interoperable standards.

That's why the FUD is so unwelcome and so biased (let alone seemingly based on nothing at all in this case).

My main point was really about the terribly illogical construction of that statement about how "if you aren't in control ... (of the software or device), ... it's working against you."

Absolute piffle.

Re:Working against the interests of the owner??

[Ohreally_factor]

Yes, Apple did that. But when the community cried out in protest, Apple corrected their practice, and now everyone involved seems happy enough. Except for those that didn't get the memo, and continue to repeat the story as if it was an ongoing situation. Now that you know better, I hope you don't continue to spread misinformation.

Re:Working against the interests of the owner??

[cbreaker]

Wanna cite some sources? Sorry if I don't take a slashdot post as lore.

Free is always relative.

[SanityInAnarchy]

For example, I am not free to kill someone. However, I consider it a good thing that no one is free to kill me -- and that increases my own freedom.

I consider the GPL to be similar to that. It always has to be a tradeoff, but it's a lot closer to freedom than most other licenses. BSD could be seen as pretty much absolutely free, but with a price -- someone can steal your code -- someone can kill you.

Re:Free is always relative.

[mr_matticus]

Except you're not restricting freedom of murderers or criminals by this requirement. You're restricting the freedoms of black people because you don't like them or their culture, not because they've done anything wrong. The group of people whose freedom the GPL restricts should have rights too. The whole world should not be GPL'd.

The GPL is not the best license in the world for everyone. It should not replace all other software licenses. If I don't use GPL code at all, I don't want to be forced to released it under the GPL, which is what the RMS zealots insist the only way is. Anyone consciously choosing to use a different licensing model should have that right.

Re:Free is always relative.

[2short]

"BSD could be seen as pretty much absolutely free, but with a price -- someone can steal your code"

No, they cannot. I've got a copy of all the code I've released under BSD, and nothing someone else does with their copy will deprive me of it.

Re:Free is always relative.

[SanityInAnarchy]

If I don't use GPL code at all, I don't want to be forced to released it under the GPL, which is what the RMS zealots insist the only way is.

Fair enough. But I think there's a decent argument for your software being called "non-free", then.

Re:Free is always relative.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'm looking for a better word there, and I can't think of one.

I suppose I should have said "Someone can ship your code in their product without compensating you in any way, even with their source code."

And I should point out that there is actually a history of fragmentation because of this. Someone releases a chunk of code under a BSD-like license, and suddenly there are 15 incompatible proprietary flavors of it, which can never be reconciled at the code level. It's already enough of a problem for Compiz/Beryl -- Compiz is BSD-ish, Beryl is a Compiz fork that went GPL.

Re:Free is always relative.

[2short]

"I suppose I should have said 'Someone can ship your code in their product without compensating you in any way, even with their source code.'"

Of course, I really knew that's what you meant. I was being snide, because I think "stealing" is not a remotely good word for describing someone doing something I've specifically authorized them to do, and which doesn't harm me in any way.

What I've personally experienced several times is: Someone releases some code under a BSD-like license, and thus I can put it together with other code that may be under all sorts of other licenses, including proprietary code. Since I don't have to worry about how the license might limit my options in the future, I'm much more likely to use the code. Since I use the code, I wind up making enhancements and fixes. While I could keep these to myself, cackling evilly, there's no reason to since this code is obviously not the core of my business in any case. And their are hopefully obvious advantages to having my changes get merged back into the main code base. The company I work for has devoted developer time to enhancing BSD liscenced libraries, and submitted our changes to the project maintainer. We've paid maintainers BSD-licenced projects to make enhancements we needed. We've never paid a dime to enhance any thing GPL, simply because we can't use it.

People think of the GPL as ensuring they'll get compensated if others use their code. But that's not really its goal, and it doesn't do all that good a job at that. If the compensation you want is enhancements to the code, BSD may be a better choice, because more developers who might enhance it can use it.

Re:Free is always relative.

[SanityInAnarchy]

While I could keep these to myself, cackling evilly, there's no reason to since this code is obviously not the core of my business in any case.

Except that many organizations don't, not because they're evil, but because they have a corporate policy centered around fears of others "stealing" their stuff (there's that word again), and maybe because their lawyers tell them it's easier not to.

The nice thing about the GPL here is, if there's something sufficiently attractive under the GPL, I've seen corporations decide it simply makes sense to release all their stuff GPL'd. This may or may not apply to you -- it's happened to me more with Drupal, for instance, where none of the software I wrote was the core of the company's business.

And as a developer, I find myself much more likely to license something as GPLv3. I can always relicence it later, if I keep ownership of the code, but for now, it means no one gets a free ride. BSD may make it more likely in some practical or ethical sense that I get compensated somehow, but GPL ensures that I get your code or you don't get mine, and I'm OK with that.

We've never paid a dime to enhance any thing GPL, simply because we can't use it.

I'm confused. Not even indirectly?

Specifically: Not even the way Oracle pays for Linux development, so they can ship their product for Linux? There are other ways to use something without directly incorporating the code into your own product. Even LGPL, for instance.

People think of the GPL as ensuring they'll get compensated if others use their code. But that's not really its goal

What is its goal, then?

Re:Free is always relative.

[2short]

"The nice thing about the GPL here is, if there's something sufficiently attractive under the GPL, I've seen corporations decide it simply makes sense to release all their stuff GPL'd."

I guess. But I've never seen something sufficiently attractive under the GPL, nor do I expect to. I'm not in a sector where I'm building little additions on top of some big open source project. I've got the big main thing, and want various little things to add around the edges. Example: Our software does various sorts of complex market analysis, then we want to present the results in a nice report, and it would be great if we could do nice charts. So we go looking for a charting library. No GPL charting library will ever possibly be so amazing that we're going to be motivated to open-source all the market analysis stuff just to use it. So we use a BSD charting library, and we give back our enhancements to it, because, besides our being nice people, it's easier for us if our enhancements get merged in with everyone elses; we get a nicer charting library with less effort. And it doesn't hurt us a bit if anyone else has nice charts too, because we ain't selling charts, we're selling market analysis.

"And as a developer, I find myself much more likely to license something as GPLv3. I can always relicence it later, if I keep ownership of the code, but for now, it means no one gets a free ride."

I can see that, though in my world-view giving unknown strangers a free ride is a bonus; it's good for my karma or something. In any case, in my professional dealings with open-source I'm rarely starting from scratch and owning all the code. I'm deciding which of several projects that do similar things I'm going to use and thus possibly contribute to. BSD is a huge plus there. GPL is a deal-killer. LGPL is a possibility, but it still means I've got to pay attention to the license and keep that code isolated in its own library; the license will force decisions I might rather make on technical grounds.

"'People think of the GPL as ensuring they'll get compensated if others use their code. But that's not really its goal'
What is its goal, then?"

Protecting certain freedoms for the end user, as best as I can understand and imperfectly summarize it. Certainly there are all sorts of ways others can benefit from your GPL code without giving you anything. They can simply use the program, unmodified. They can make modifications but not distribute them. They can make modifications, and distribute them along with source to users who agree not to share them with the general public. The end users freedoms are still protected in these situations, but you, the original developer, get nothing.

But fundamentally, my argument is this: You can say "Feel free to use this, and if you make improvements, I'd love to hear about them!", or you can say "Feel free to use this and if you make improvements, you must give me the source to them and any other software you link this with or I'll sue your ass!" I know which one will get a better response from me, and I know which one is the sort of message I'd like to be putting out into the world.

Re:Free is always relative.

[SanityInAnarchy]

No GPL charting library will ever possibly be so amazing that we're going to be motivated to open-source all the market analysis stuff just to use it.

Maybe an LGPL charting library, then, although I realize that the hardcore RMS/GNU philosophy is that LGPL is only for situations where competing libraries exist.

I can see that, though in my world-view giving unknown strangers a free ride is a bonus; it's good for my karma or something.

I just rest easier if karma is inherent in the system. Kind of like BitTorrent, actually.

You can say "Feel free to use this, and if you make improvements, I'd love to hear about them!", or you can say "Feel free to use this and if you make improvements, you must give me the source to them and any other software you link this with or I'll sue your ass!"

Let me put this another way: I occasionally toy with writing fiction. I haven't gotten anything published yet, but if I did, I know I would prefer not to publish it under "Feel free to read this, and if you like it, I'd love for you to send me some money!"

Don't think of it as a threat, think of it as a deal. Give me the source [and anything you link it with, if GPL instead of LGPL], and you get all this stuff for free!

Re:Free is always relative.

[2short]

"Maybe an LGPL charting library, then, although I realize that the hardcore RMS/GNU philosophy is that LGPL is only for situations where competing libraries exist."

Competing libraries do exist; in the case of the charting lib, dozens of them, so it costs me nothing to insist on BSD. I've gone through this sort of search maybe a dozen times, and exactly once been tempted to go with an LGPL option (but actually didn't). A BSD-ish option is almost always out there, and in my completely anecdotal, entirely subjective experience, generally
superior.

As far as I can tell, the hardcore RMS philosophy is that producers of proprietary software, like me, are evil bastards; and that losing our contributions is a small price to pay for causing us inconvenience. I don't let this bother me, as I don't agree, and don't feel particularly inconvenienced.

"I just rest easier if karma is inherent in the system."

Sorry, but MY hardcore philosophy says: No karma if you require a return; Only altruists need apply. :)

"I occasionally toy with writing fiction. I haven't gotten anything published yet, but if I did, I know I would prefer not to publish it under 'Feel free to read this, and if you like it, I'd love for you to send me some money!'"

I suggest you might get more money if you did it that way. You get nothing (per reader) if people borrow the book from a friend or the library. Give it to them as a free download, and more people might read your stuff and become the sort of fans who will want a nice hardcover for their bookshelf. Cory Doctorow is published, and seems to think putting all his stuff on line free increases his bookstore sales. No way to measure for sure of course.

"Don't think of it as a threat, think of it as a deal. Give me the source [and anything you link it with, if GPL instead of LGPL], and you get all this stuff for free!"
Never going to happen, even if I wanted to. I don't own the source of everything I link to. ( And it's just a charting library, there's plenty more)

Re:Free is always relative.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Never going to happen, even if I wanted to. I don't own the source of everything I link to.

Right, so use LGPL.

In any case, that comment was not meant for you, personally.

As far as I can tell, the hardcore RMS philosophy is that producers of proprietary software, like me, are evil bastards; and that losing our contributions is a small price to pay for causing us inconvenience.

You're half right. They do believe that proprietary software is evil. That doesn't necessarily make you an evil bastard, it just means you do something evil.

The other half is not true. The philosophy has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with what they consider to be theirs. And yes, it is also about tempting you to go entirely open, but the core point of it is, if proprietary software is evil, they don't want to be a part of it.

Personally, I probably wouldn't mind my stuff being used in proprietary software, especially if it was under LGPL, but maybe even under BSD. There are other things that bother me, though -- like DRM systems and voting machines. In any case, I consider it possible to develop evil stuff that is proprietary -- spyware, for instance -- and relatively impossible to do that with open source. Specifically, if I GPL something, I can be sure that it will never be used directly in a piece of spyware that even attempts to be legal.

Sorry, but MY hardcore philosophy says: No karma if you require a return; Only altruists need apply. :)

So I can get your software for free? After all, paying you cash would be a "return", wouldn't it?

I suggest you might get more money if you did it that way. You get nothing (per reader) if people borrow the book from a friend or the library. Give it to them as a free download, and more people might read your stuff and become the sort of fans who will want a nice hardcover for their bookshelf.

I think I'm much better off charging money for it up front, in every form. I'll sell you a cheap, un-DRM'd copy, though -- and distribute it with the book -- and look the other way for people to download it.

The reason is, I find that the younger generation has less of a problem with reading something on a computer than, say, the Baby Boomers. But people do occasionally tend to "legitimize" the things they like, especially if they know their copy is illegal.

In any case, I ask again: Are you doing this with your software?

Never going to happen, even if I wanted to.

You are starting to get the picture, though, right?

It's not intended to be an assault against proprietary software. It's a deal, a contract, and a way to promote free software.

When they protest something, they do it openly and directly -- DefectiveByDesign, for example.

Re:Free is always relative.

[2short]

"So I can get your software for free? After all, paying you cash would be a "return", wouldn't it?"

The stuff I give away because I'm a nice guy you can have for free, and without a single string attached. The stuff I sell for money because I and my family like to eat is a different story. And yes, I know it is theoretically possible to make money on GPL software; it's not how I choose to go about it.

To be clear: I think it is a wonderful thing to give things away for free; I don't think it's a moral imperative. I think the GPL is a wonderful way to ensure the freedoms you grant to users of your software remain intact for all users of your software. (Though as a practical matter, it may mean your software has fewer users.)

I don't think the GPL is a bad thing or those who use it are bad people; quite the opposite. My critique is that I think it is ineffective. I don't think the "deal" it offers is likely to sway anyone who didn't agree with the moral argument already. I think those who will contribute to open source because it's a superior model for developing commodity code far outnumber those who will contribute because they think proprietary is evil, and hence that BSD code will tend to go farther faster than more restricted code. I think BSD is a better way to promote open source.

"You are starting to get the picture, though, right?"
You, and many others, seem to assume my opinion of the GPL stems from a lack of understanding of it or it's goals. This is not the case. I do not believe my opinion on BSD vs. GPL has changed significantly since it first formed about 15 years ago.

Re:Free is always relative.

[SanityInAnarchy]

The stuff I sell for money because I and my family like to eat is a different story.

I don't mean to judge you here, but let's be clear: You sell stuff for money. With the GPL, I trade code for code.

I understand that there are practical differences, but I don't see what makes yours an honest living, and mine some sort of hidden threat of a lawsuit.

Nor am I claiming the opposite -- that I'm some altruistic saint, and you're an evil proprietary developer (developer! developer! developer!) -- I'm just pointing out that I always have, and always will see the GPL as one of the clearest, fairest licenses out there, especially when compared to proprietary software. BSD may be better, and it may be worse, but "give me source or I'll sue" is not at all the tone of the GPL, it's entirely a response to people who abuse it.

I don't think the "deal" it offers is likely to sway anyone who didn't agree with the moral argument already.

I'd argue that it already has: Lawyers.

In short: Large companies like IBM and Oracle use and develop Linux. If Linux was BSD-licensed, the individual programmers might be fine with giving code back, but you might have a corporate lawyer who decides that you shouldn't give away anything you don't have to. People could sort of agree in principle, but be bound by an NDA.

This has happened before -- read the story of the printer driver that pissed RMS off so much in the first place that he started this whole thing. He did eventually track down the developer most responsible for writing the software, but the guy didn't have the source code, and even if he did, had signed legal agreements preventing him from releasing it.

Linux, though, is a different story. Sure, IBM could've gone with FreeBSD, but Linux is bigger, has more developers, more drivers, and I'd imagine it actually performs better, too. It certainly has been ported to more platforms. And because of the GPL, if you can make the (very impressive) business case (including GPL), then the deal is sealed -- your lawyers cannot come to you later and suggest you close everything up.

The only thing I consider ineffective here is that there are too many loopholes -- the existence of proprietary kernel modules is proof of that. You could argue that nVidia may never have developed a Linux driver at all, and you may be right. I'd argue that the situation is worse now -- there are tons of licenses and patents on that driver, probably most of which are not owned by nVidia. Had they been forced into GPL or nothing, we might've gotten nothing, but they might've also worked harder to ensure that they didn't license anything for use in their driver that they couldn't control.

For that matter, nVidia did pretty well keeping up for awhile, so maybe they never intended to go open until it became apparent just how fast Linux moves.

I think those who will contribute to open source because it's a superior model for developing commodity code far outnumber those who will contribute because they think proprietary is evil, and hence that BSD code will tend to go farther faster than more restricted code.

We can argue all day about whether that should be true, but in the real world, it isn't. Linux is much, much farther along than any BSD save OS X, which does not contribute much of its BSD code back to the community, and often has to have its arm twisted to give back its GPL'd and LGPL'd stuff.

I suppose Solaris arguably comes close... but hey, Solaris is also GPL'd!

You could also argue that the BSD network stack has gone farther (as parts of it are apparently in Windows), but I don't think that is good for the community, or an effective way to promote open source. It's good for Microsoft, and for Windows, and for people who depend on Windows, but it ends there.

Re:Free is always relative.

[2short]

"I don't mean to judge you here, but let's be clear: You sell stuff for money. With the GPL, I trade code for code."

As a proprietary developer, I sell stuff for money, and I don't sell access to the source except for a lot more money. Under BSD, I give code access away free. Under GPL, you give code access away subject to some restrictions. I see nothing morrally questionable about any of this. Contrary to the FSF, I believe that if you write the code, you can do whatever the heck you want with it. I do not see providing access to source code as a moral issue of any kind.

    People expect the GPL to produce a surprising variety of effects, and in my opinion, it doesn't do a very good job at producing most of the effects those releasing it under hope for. Your mileage may vary.

Linux is a very different sort of project than a charting library. My arguments apply exclusively to projects on the scale of a nice charting library. At this scale, I argue BSD is superior if your goal is to get developers to use and contribute to your project; because this has been my experience. If your goal is something else, or you are writing something more like Linux, you may want a different license.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I think that in the future that'll be called "iPhone Software Update 1.1." Idiot.

Bunch of twelve year olds!

[Anonymous Coward]

I guarantee Apple had their crack team of Jews (aka Lawyers) check all of the licensing out before any of you even thought of it. Calm the fuck down. What's it matter, anyway? You want an about box listing all of the developers to ever write code for what went into the system?

Oh, because that's going to be easily handled. (That OS code is hacked to hell and to ask Apple to back track all the changes they made so they acknowledge the appropriate people is a huge undertaking, I'd imagine.)

Re:"Run afoul?"

[mr_matticus]

As the second comment on the posting, I fail to see how this can be -1 redundant. But it just goes to show that it depends which moderators get a hold of the comments. The RMS zealots are playing directly into the role they're modding me down for. So much for "moderation isn't about what you personally believe."

Re:Jumping to conclusions {-- how ironic... ;)

[larzluv]

From the F'n Art:

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.

We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using [SOME!] GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software."

Emphasis mine.

Your brilliant response?

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?

It's generally known - or at least reasonably assumed, after figuring they'd reuse rather than rewrite working code used in OSX - that the FSF-rep-given quote is true. There are some (L)GPL'd items used.

You indirectly assert - or disingenuously "suggest" - that "we" don't "know" that.

Fine, bell the cat: cite your sources, your contradictory evidence, and/or your "reasoning" that Apple'd abandon the work they'd already done on major pieces of the (presumably obviously recycled) code from their other product(s), namely OSX...


Regarding your laughable assertion that "it is not that much more difficult to rewrite than it is to reuse":

[1] Then why on earth would they use/contribute-to OSS?

and

[2] You claim that's what you'd do... really? What project(s)/company(/ies) have you written your proprietary code for...?

Wait, I may be mistaken... are those crickets chirping...!? ;)

-Larz

Re:"Run afoul?"

[larry bagina]

Slashdot runs on SLASH, which is licensed under the GPL. I demand CmdrTaco give me root access.

it's actually better for Apple

[nanosquid]

If there isn't any evidence of GPL violation, why make the accusation?

There is evidence: Apple says that the iPhone runs Safari, which implies that it uses KHTML. That is more than a reasonable cause for a court of law to demand that Apple disclose to the court the source code used in iPhone and prove that they aren't violating the LGPL. That's the way software copyright enforcement works in these cases.

Furthermore, for people to give Apple a chance to fix this by talking about it publicly, they are doing Apple a favor. If Apple really is in violation of the LGPL, Apple has already lost all rights to distributing KHTML, meaning they'd have to remove Safari from both the iPhone and OS X in the next update.

Re:You do not have the freedom to destroy a freedo

[civilizedINTENSITY]

And yet, ironically, it is you who copies part of my comment and just changes a couple of words. Consider if my comment had been subject to a license similar to the GPL. Then by now I would own your ass.

No, no, no! You don't "get" the concept at all. If you where not under something like the GPL, then you automaticly have copyright. This means that fair use applies. However, if you did have a copyright that was in the spirit of the GPL, then he could copy and modify and distribute all that he wants, as long as he uses the "spirit of the GPL" license it is under.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[larry bagina]

How many times have you seen code licensed under GPL v 1 or later? The "or later" part is so the FSF etc can edit it to say "v 3 or later" for future releases. That's the point of it.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[larry bagina]

copyright licenses are a contract; it may not be altered without permission of both parties. [Some contracts, eg credit card agreements, include a provision allowing for the company to make changes, but the GPL doesn't]. The FSF requires copyright assignment to protect themselves, make enforcement easier, and make license updates easier. Contributors sign paperwork agreeing that it's their code, not copyrighted by anyone else, etc. Linux is forever stuck on GPL v2 due to the hundreds of people that have a copyright in it. GNU tools can be relicensed as GPL v3 with a simple sed script.

Re:How isn't this FUD? {-- Uhh, because it's not!

[larzluv]

The problem I have is the FSF is apparently spreading accusations that Apple may have violated the terms of the GPL.

I just Googled for the quote from Peter Brown - not the *complete* quote, but enough to key for it - and found 4, count 'em, ***4*** links. 3 were blog listings referring back to /., then /. The original seems to originate from TFA...

Thus, they, as in the FSF, certainly isn't *spreading* "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt"...

FURTHERMORE, if one bothers to read (and comprehend) the quote, it's a generalization: there is (L)GPL code on the iPhone. Wouldn't we all be curious "how much"...

Is there, or is there not any that GPLv3 covers? NO! (Well, DUH!)

Is there any that v2 would force Apple to "unlockdown" their new baby? NO!

The point is not that Apple/iPhone is infringing, but that if the code in question were under GPLv3 (not v2, and not the LGPL), then, at least the portions/code covered by said license, would be disallowed from being "locked down" by Apple.

The point is users deserve - and some of us actually WANT - un-crippled gear. For our own reasons. It's OUR gear. (The company gave up rights to it upon sale; we're not licensing, nor leasing it.)

The point of the F'n Art is NOT that Apple IS infringing, but in a perfect world they WOULD be, and so wouldn't do so - either from removing the thumb screws from their devices, and/or using non-GPL code. (Please don't belaborly argue "There's no GPL'd code!" It's a non-issue. It's quite beside the point.)

To decry Mr. Brown's comment is to take him out of context and to change/insert words where there aren't any.

YES, the FSF wants a world where TiVo's AREN'T locked down. Nor iPhones. Nor any other device that has a general purpose, programmable CPU.

I want to live in that world, too.

THAT is the point of the GPLv3. Of the article discussing the relative theme of the iPhone and GPLv3 being released at the same time. Context. Relevance. Topicalness.

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.

I really don't understand statements/attitudes like this one. WE are the users of GPL'd software, NOT APPLE ! They happen to be a company that wants to save some time, (more easily) ensure higher quality software, get some publicity/good-karma, etc., by utilizing - even if only a base - OSS. That they still believe that "propriety software" is where it's at, that's why they use mostly BSD licensed parts. The (L)GPL'd parts were used... due to greater maturity? Greater flexibility? Whatever the reason(s), surely Apple had it/them!

(Regarding Apple still holding on to the proprietary software model: I'd counter that people buy an iPod/iPhone due to the entire package. Being that they're affordable to middle-class++ people, but the bulk, certainly of the "cooler models", are relatively expensive [but OH-so cheap for what they are! ;], they're definitely a status symbol. Apple will always hold the trademark for the logo, name, etc. THOSE are the crown jewels, not the underlying software. W

Re:GPL - a short summary - MOD UP

[Anonymous Coward]

There is NOTHING in GPLv2 that says a device has to be "hackable" by the end user!

The company just needs to make the source avaialable for the parts that fall under the GPLs umbrella THAT'S IT. You are then free to MAKE YOUR OWN PHONE using that source.

The FSF is constanly trying to make much much MORE of the GPL than it is. THEY demand that all devices be hackable, THEY can demand all they want, it doesn't make it so. It doesn't even make it right.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[VGPowerlord]

I usually skip Wikipedia and link directly to the sites it sources.

Of course, that assumes the site in question isn't returning "Please visit later again, the site is currently under repair." like kdedevelopers.org is.

AC whining.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

The bottom line is that the GPL wants all software to be GPL'd, period, and it's not right.

Hate to break it to you, but the GPL is a license & doesn't want anything.

Re:AC whining.

[that this is not und]

I'm certain he meant to say 'the proponents of the GPL want,' but you're free to spin off into a childish tangent and in effect lose the arguement.

You were doing so well, too.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[VGPowerlord]

Only if what's used is different from what Apple has already released, and only if the relevant portions of Webkit are, in fact, LGPL'd. From what I recall, that "KHTML fork" called Webkit includes some material outside the LGPL. Even if there's source code yet to be released, they've not necessarily "run afoul" of anything yet.

In that case, Apple is explicitly violating Section 2 of the LGPL. Incorporating an LGPL library into a library requires you to license the latter mentioned library as LGPL.

Re:"Run afoul?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I am on KHTML team. Current konqueror alphas use webkit with a QT backend. We expect that KHTML will be replaced with wekbit for KDE 4. Apple has good engineers working on webkit, and their development process is open (we had problems before). It is silly to duplicate effort, merging patches, etc.

regards, Bruno

Re:"Run afoul?"

[mr_matticus]

That is not true. If the work is sufficiently independent so as to be considered a different component, it does not need to be released as LGPL per section 2:

Honestly now, lawyers have been all over Safari and Webkit for the past five years. The partitioning of LGPL code and compliance with its licenses have already been established and accepted by the community. If there was a problem with Apple's development of components, you've had five years to say something about it. As the copyright holders are satisfied with Apple's Webcore and Javascriptcore compliance, there is no violation or even an alleged violation.

Oops. Left out a bracket tag. Read this one.

[mr_matticus]

That is not true. If the work is sufficiently independent so as to be considered a different component, it does not need to be released as LGPL per section 2:

If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. Honestly now, lawyers have been all over Safari and Webkit for the past five years. The partitioning of LGPL code and compliance with its licenses have already been established and accepted by the community. If there was a problem with Apple's development of components, you've had five years to say something about it. As the copyright holders are satisfied with Apple's WebCore and JavascriptCore compliance (and as they are deemed and declared separate components in the Webkit project), there is no violation or even an alleged violation.

it's not about derivatives

[nanosquid]

For instance, if I distribute a new operating system that is proprietary but I include with it a GPL application, does that make the whole operating system fall under the GPL? I surely hope not!

You're mixing up two things. Let's talk about a hypothetical GPL'ed Foobar software package.

If you create a derivative of Foobar, then your derivative is automatically covered by the GPL. You can't do anything about that. Commercial licenses work the same (if they don't provide derivative works outright).

But if you don't create a derivative, that doesn't mean that you can do with Foobar whatever you like; you still need to comply with the other license terms. If you don't, you lose the license to use Foobar and you may be liable for penalties or damages.

So, if Apple violated the LGPL with KHTML, then the consequence would simply be that they had to stop using or shipping KHTML (i.e., Safari and WebKit) immediately. At that point, legally, it wouldn't even make any difference whether they put all of OS X under the GPL, the violation has already occurred and they don't have a license anymore.

Re:it's not about derivatives

[Anonymous Coward]

he violation has already occurred and they don't have a license anymore. Wrong. Violation of license does not automatically dissolve the license. The copyright owners of KHTML would have to terminate Apple's license by alleging noncompliance, and if Apple disagreed, it would have to be taken to court. If you break your employment contract, that does not mean the contract no longer exists or that your employment is terminated as an automatic consequence. You still have to be fired by the company, and the reason for that is "contract violation." But the two are not inseparably linked.

Also, if Apple hypothetically violated the LGPL with KHTML, they wouldn't have to stop using/shipping Webkit. They'd have to stop using/shipping WebCore, which is a component of Webkit. They could swap it out for a proprietary rendering engine, swap it out for Gecko, or anything else in short order. Webkit itself is BSD licensed. Only WebCore and JavascriptCore are LGPL, according to the Apple developer materials.

Re:it's not about derivatives

[nanosquid]

Wrong. Violation of license does not automatically dissolve the license. The copyright owners of KHTML would have to terminate Apple's license by alleging noncompliance, and if Apple disagreed, it would have to be taken to court.

You're playing word games. In fact, if they violate the terms of the license, they do indeed lose the rights they have under the license, period.

That follows, among other things, from the fact that a court would determine the termination of the license to be the point in time at which a company violates the license, not the point in time when the court makes the determination.

Also, if Apple hypothetically violated the LGPL with KHTML, they wouldn't have to stop using/shipping Webkit. They'd have to stop using/shipping WebCore, which is a component of Webkit. They could swap it out for a proprietary rendering engine, swap it out for Gecko, or anything else in short order.

Again, you're playing word games. Right now, WebKit and Safari contain LGPL'ed code, so if Apple violated the license, they'd have to stop shipping them, no ifs or buts. What other software they ship under those names in the future is not relevant.

(And it's pretty naive to think that something like KHTML can "just be swapped out". And, in any case, it wouldn't remove their liability for past violations.)

iPhone uses LGPL code (it's in the EULA)

[EccentricAnomaly]

if you read the EULA when you activate the phone it mentions that it uses LGPL code and gives the LGPL licence. I think this is for WebKit but it may be for other things too... I just skimmed the EULA because I was ansy to get a chance to play with my new toy. Anyway, I expect Apple to release an ARM version of Webkit shortly (they may have already) and any other LGPL stuff they have ported to the iPhne as well. I doubt there's and straight-out GPL code on the iPhone as Apple seems to avoid distributing GPL code other than by seperate installers. (I'm pretty sure all of OS-X's GPL stuff is in seperate install packages from the proprietary stuff if you look at the DVD). I assume they do that to out of respect and fear for the various GPL purity requirements that make it best to keep proprietary code partitioned from the free-as-in-freedom code.

Re:How isn't this FUD? {-- Uhh, because it's not!

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I really don't understand statements/attitudes like this one. WE are the users of GPL'd software, NOT APPLE !

Why isn't Apple a user? They used KHTML to make Safari. I think you need to recheck the definition of user. A developer can use libraries GPL or otherwise to make an end product that someone else can use.

So technically the chain is: KHTML (WebKit) is used by Apple to make safari, and safari is used by end users to browse the web.

GPLv2: if you make modifications AND REDISTRIBUTE ANY VERSION OF THE RESULTING CODE (namely, compiled versions), then you MUST allow those changes to be made public. The point is to allow THE USERS the right to the device, and it's software, that THEY, THE USERS, OWN.

GPLv3: DAMNED TIVO!!! Okay, let's try this again: some sort of magic, and NOW you can't disallow the end user from changing the (GPL'd) software you're using in a proprietary device (such devices which are not only accepted, but ENJOYED!) so the user NOW (we hope) has libre over OUR software/device! The point is to allow THE USERS the right to the device, and it's software, that THEY, THE USERS, OWN.

Which part(s) of these philosophies do you have a problem with...? Expiring minds wanna know...

Ahhh where to start? Ok. First of all GPL2 was never about the hardware. It was always assumed that there would always be a general purpose computing device that can run the software.

In addition, if there was a massive extinction of hardware engineers (hell even hobbyist) I would be concerned but currently I'm not.

Now let's talk about Tivo. If you own your own hardware, then I see nothing from preventing you to modify it as you like. However, this right to modify something that you own doesn't translate into Tivo (or anyone else) has to make it easy for you.

So you bought a product that does most of what you like and now you want to tinker with it? Fine. But wait, I can't do it because Tivo executes only signed code and I am going to figure out a way around it (Boo hoo).

I see absolutely nothing wrong with what Tivo does. In fact, it allows Tivo to sell the equipment at a loss in exchange for a subscription to their services. If people were able to easily modify these boxes to not require Tivo services or to block advertisements from that service (which subsidizes the cost of the hardware), I can see where Tivo would either have to price the hardware to make up for the losses or worse finally go out of business.

But the anti-tivo crowd are not bitching that they can't build a similar product because we have MythTV. What they are bitching about is that they can't buy cheap hardware that is sold at a loss with the intent to sell a service, and modify it.

Re:How isn't this FUD? {-- Uhh, because it's not!

[gig]

> there is (L)GPL code on the iPhone. Wouldn't we all be curious "how much"...

There are drugs in your house. Wouldn't we all be curious how much?

Re:How isn't this FUD? {-- Uhh, because it's not!

[larzluv]

With all due respect... seriously...

Why isn't Apple a user?

I'm not unaware that Apple (and/or any other companies) "uses" open source software. But (primarily) only in the same sense that a TV manufacturer "uses" those resistors in the television set they make.

This sort of statement seems absurd to me: the purpose of the device/software is the end user. Other than those who simply love to create, I'd wager that any company would skip the whole "developpement" thing and go straight to the "Tada!" stage of product sales any day of the week. For a software/device company, the open source code is merely a means to an end, not the end itself.

It is intended to be the tool of we, the purchasers of finished product. So I reassert: WE are the "user".

---

Ahhh where to start? Ok. First of all GPL2 was never about the hardware.

I've never asserted anything else. But the spirit of the license made the short-sighted (in retrospect) assumption you state. How else would you explain the "need" (by FSF/RMS) for a v3...?

---

RE: Tivo...

I have never, nor would ever, talk about the lack of a "right" for TiVo (et al, and anybody else with their respective software/device) to make whatever toaster they wish. And, indeed, it's for me, the buyer, to "beware" and make a judgement call as to whether I wish to purchase a thing despite its shortcomings.

Firstly, I assert it's not just, nor morally "right" for TiVo to sell a locked device. But they have every right to. And I purchased it anyway. But that still doesn't invalidate my feelings on the matter: there's no real reason/need to have most of the system locked - preventing me, the owner, from "tinkering".

Secondly, TiVo made a choice - for business reasons - to sell at below cost (way-back-when; tell me another fable that they're still under-priced with current hardware costs). That's still their choice. That their business model was based on the long-term subscription model isn't my fault.

Furthermore, the parts of the system that deal with the "locking the box except to subscribers" is surely separate, and therefore separately lockable, from "the rest of the system"? Then the arbitrariness of the lock-down is moot on this point. I understand perfectly well the various reasons TiVo's are locked as much as they are. I could, however, debate the reasonableness/validity of the vast majority of them.

Lastly, I hope you don't think I'm "anti TiVo". I'm not. (Did I mention I bought 2, plus one for parts?) I merely pointed out some obvious, honest items. (To make my argument.) And even those who are "anti TiVo" - at least the majority that I've read/seen - aren't complaining about getting TiVo equipment at sub-cost levels - alternative, "generic" hardware isn't much different in cost than actual TiVo equipment. Matter of fact, any "anti TiVo" people I've read/seen seem to focus on some complaints that seem perfectly valid to me, like:

[1] Many of the "shortcomings" I've mentioned, and others, and the fact that since the software is locked, workarounds cannot be made by the end users. This is only necessary as TiVo themselves see no business case for making the changes desired.

[2] That upgrading, service, repair, and other such things are severely limited, technically illegal, and/or impossible because of many software lock-downs TiVo chose to do; lock-downs not necessary for their subscription service, but just for General Principals.

[3] TiVo hardware is locked-down with regards recordings in ways other devices/technologies already aren't, and this is more a complaint about "rights holders" than TiVo themselves, except that TiVo "caves" to their desires. (And this is understandably regrettably due to business necessity: see "ReplayTV"...)

[4] A lack of hardware sold at a "reasonable cost/pr

Re:How isn't this FUD? {-- Uhh, because it's not!

[larzluv]

Doubtful. But the government/police would.

Any company that uses (L)GPL code is legally bound by the applicable license.

While I would never advocate they should make all their code viewable by The World + 1 (thereby making their proprietary code "open source"), any code they did use makes them, for those parts, liable for the license terms.

Presumably they've specified any parts so bound in various "info" listings. Presumably the FSF didn't get an advance iPhone, nor any type of release from Apple specifying such, before they made their statement. (Even so, I'd suggest it's a rather innocuous statement.)

The point is, various parties are curious about "how much", for various reasons. (I wager any self-respecting OSS advocate would be curious for bragging rights, for example! ;)

For those trying to make gold from this hay, I have a suggestion: the only entity needing to "beware" to any FSF saber rattling is Apple, and it's doubtful the FSF would take any (legal) action without due diligence, isn't it? (Now, if the FSF were a deep-pockets competitor, that might be a different story, but last I heard/read... they're not exactly rolling on dough... ;)


Cheers,
Larz