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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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