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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

[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:"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.

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

[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

[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?

"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.

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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: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).

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

[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:"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.
[...]

Don't even suggest it!

[Enderandrew]

Apple would never consider forking KHTML!

*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 :-)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

[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.

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).

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.

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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: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