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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

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:"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.

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

[Eunuchswear]

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

"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.

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?

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...

[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.

*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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.