Slashdot Mirror


FSF Rattles Tivo Saber At Apple

Ohreally_factor takes us back to Friday when both the iPhone and the GPLv3 were released. "This article at Tectonic suggests that Apple's iPhone might run afoul of the GPL. Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF is quoted as saying: 'Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work — it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software.' Might there really be GPLed code in the iPhone? It's well known that OS X built on BSD, which of course uses the BSD license. Webkit is based on KHTML which uses the LGPL."

6 of 571 comments (clear)

  1. Apples Making Cell Phones? by GreggBz · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, I read the story and realize that Apples making cell phones now!?
    Cool, I'll have to check this out.

  2. Show me the FSF quote.. by LingNoi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    .. 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?
  3. *Users'* freedom by DrYak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ?

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  4. Re:How isn't this FUD? by xaxa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?".

  5. Re:How isn't this FUD? by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  6. Re:How isn't this FUD? by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!