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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[Genevish]

Ted Kazinsky called. Your shack in the woods is ready for you...

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?

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

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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).

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.
[...]

*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: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: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.

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.

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).

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.