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

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:"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.
[...]

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: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:"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: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.

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: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:"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: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?

[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: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.

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: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?

[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?

[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: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: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?

[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.