Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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.
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.
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.
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?
BSD zealot strikes again?
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.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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 ?
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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.
-- Cheers!
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
;], 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
(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!
"To err is human, to totally fsck things up requires an election." - L.W. Hale