How Nokia and Linux Can Live Together

Bruce Perens writes "Ari Jaaski of Nokia is concerned that the Linux developers need to learn to live with DRM, SIM-locking, and 'IPR'. But they won't. Fortunately, Nokia can do all that it wants with Linux, while being GPL2 and even GPL3-compatible. The key is knowing how to draw bright lines between different parts of the system. That's a legal term, and in this case it means a line between the Free Software and the rest of the system, that is 'bright' in that the two pieces are very well separated, and there is no dispute that one could be a derivative work of the other, or infringes on the other in any way. All of the Free Software goes on one side of that line, and all of the lock-down stuff on the other side." A very interesting read, and a good how-to for any company that is looking to use GPLed code as part of their products, or even just make their products to be hacker-friendly.

Comments

Hmm

[mccalli]

From the summary: "Nokia is concerned that the Linux developers need to learn to live with DRM, SIM-locking, and 'IPR'. But they won't. "

Rephrased by me: Nokia is concerned that they need Linux developers need to learn to live with DRM, SIM-locking, and 'IPR'. And they won't.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

So you represent Nokia, Pauline is the nascent open source developer, and grandpa is... Microsoft?

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia is the 'sum of all pleasures' associated with this fucktasm. - The cum-dripping post-rape pussy is Linux/open-source. (Microsoft is the ice cream salesman, by the way.)

The Bright Line

[camperdave]

Looks like the Bright Line for me may be the Nokia label, if they are going to maintain their attitude.

Re:The Bright Line

[mrsteveman1]

I don't think Nokia is taking the wrong position here, they have to satisfy a number of different interests, and as long as they comply with the license terms of the software they use I don't see a problem.

The alternative is to choose a different OS to build on, and with some exceptions most open source advocates don't want to see that happen, because it would be bad for the platform if companies stop using it.

Re:The Bright Line

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they care? If their attitude reduces costs/increases revenue by more than they'd lose from you and your peers opting out then it sounds like the right attitude for the company to have.

Re:The Bright Line

[ShieldW0lf]

The alternative is to design devices that don't use their infrastructure. The alternative is to deliver a product to consumers that allows them to flagrantly violate all the monopolistic regulations governing the airwaves, operate mesh networks for communications outside of centralized control, and send these bastards the way of the horse and buggy. These guys can be rendered redundant by simple pieces of hardware placed into a critical mass of hands. And, inevitably, eventually, thankfully... they will. Wonder of RMS will be demanding that they stick a GNU in the name.

Re:The Bright Line

[deathy_epl ccs]

He's planning on being a little more insidious this time... he wants them to change the name to Gnokia.

Re:The Bright Line

[NDPTAL85]

Thats more than a bit of wishful thinking. Most consumers don't care one bit what OS runs their phones. They're not in this for your revolution, princess.

Re:The Bright Line

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the Bright Line for me may be the Nokia label, if they are going to maintain their attitude. I am using a MacBook, iWork and TimeCapsule. Not little surprised I found that Apple's word processor Pages do not have Norwegian spelling. A Norwegian dictionary is something even my little cell phone has.

My reason to switch to Mac was that I wanted a system in which all devices and applications are trimmed up against each other in order to communicate and synchronize perfectly.
Now I see that even dedicated and loyal customers will be closed out when it comes to Apple's mobile phone. After reading about the subject, this is just a continuation of a culture of Apple that goes back years and that represents a commercial greed that we do not find in the same extent at e.g. Microsoft.

My solution is to sell out: by by Apple.
It would be great if Nokia developed its own Linux-distribution, or enter into a close co-operation with, say Ubuntu.

Re:The Bright Line

[SanityInAnarchy]

as long as they comply with the license terms of the software they use I don't see a problem. The GPLv3 forbids a lot of things Nokia wants to do.

it would be bad for the platform if companies stop using it. It wouldn't matter much for the platform at all if companies continue to use it, but contribute nothing at all. In that case, they may as well not be using it.

Basically, Nokia has three simple options: Either play by the rules, pay me for my efforts, or don't use my code. That's one more option than you get with proprietary software, by the way.

Re:The Bright Line

[mrsteveman1]

Huh? How does the GPLv3 even apply at all to separate code? I fail to see how simply running software alongside GPLv3 code suddenly causes the GPLv3 to apply to the entire platform or any other code running on it. If Nokia builds interfaces and media applications in userspace using their own code the GPLv3 has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, the kernel is GPLv2, so V3 is never going to apply to anything they do to the kernel anyway.

Like i said, they are going to avoid linux if the license issues become ridiculous, and FSF seems to want to push that direction even when companies comply in full.

What makes you think Nokia doesn't contribute back to Linux? You think the only value to be had comes from code being contributed back? Simply having the largest handset manufacturer in the world using Linux gives the platform legitimacy it otherwise DOES NOT HAVE. And in any case i question your implication that Nokia doesn't contribute anything to Linux.

As far as i can tell Nokia IS playing by the rules, the problem is the rules keep fucking changing.

Re:The Bright Line

[Bruce Perens]

and as long as they comply with the license terms of the software they use I don't see a problem.

Jaaksi never explained fully what the problem was but I suspect he was concerned with licensing, and upcoming licensing like GPL3 that tries even harder to enforce the freeness. I've shown that he can live with that without getting any concession from the developers regarding DRM, SIM locking, and bondage business models.

The problem for Nokia and all is that building modern operating system features is horribly expensive, and unjustifiable when they are already there for the picking, no charge. But they haven't quite figured out how to put the two pieces - free and proprietary - together in a way that satisfies everyone. I can tell them how. I'd really prefer that they paid for this sort of lesson, that is one way I support myself after all, but could not let such a public example of mistaken corporate strategic thinking about Linux pass by unchallenged.

Bruce

Re:The Bright Line

[Bruce Perens]

The GPLv3 forbids a lot of things Nokia wants to do.

Slashdot can be frustrating at times, especially when people don't read the article pointed to before they comment. I sat down and spent two hours explaining that you can indeed do what Nokia wants in the context of GPL3, you just have to know how. And that's what this is about. Please do read it.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:The Bright Line

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Bruce. We at Noika are in the market for a certified GNU/Zealot consultant with decades of Pretend Internet Lawyer experience and terrible grooming, so we will be contacting you shortly to inquire into your rates.

Re:The Bright Line

[bytesex]

I think it's safe to say that what Nokia wants is different from, and opposed to what RMS wants, even if both parties haven't come down to defining it to its legal-speak extremes. Because as long as there is a layer of software underneath your OS/userland that you're not allowed to modify to exercise your freedom to tinker and pass on, RMS will be opposed to it. He may not (yet) have worded it so in whatever the current version of the GPL is, but I do think that this is in his line of thinking.

I realize I am putting words into RMS's mouth here, and if I'm wrong, I apologize profusely, because I do respect his opinion. But all I can see here is something yet unforbidden.

Re:The Bright Line

[hairyfeet]

What I don't get is why these companies keep trying to screw over the GPL when there is BSD which has a license that'll let them do pretty much whatever they want. Which is kinda ironic when you think about it: All these companies who are so uptight and anal retentive when it comes to DRM and protecting "their" IP seem almost hellbent on stealing the work of all those GPL coders for their DRM schemes. Personally I'm tired of this "treat the customer like scum" routine and refuse to buy any DRM crap,period. But that is my 02c,YMMV

Re:The Bright Line

[luca]

Hey, Nokia is actually contributing developers and code to various projects, so they're not the kind that just takes without giving back. Maybe you're confusing them with broadcom.

Re:The Bright Line

[chamont]

I've just started a new project based on this code. I'm calling it KGnokia.

Re:The Bright Line

[HiThere]

Now explain why we would want to help them.

GPL code can be used in a lot of ways, and perhaps Noika can use it in the way they desire. But I have no desire to help them in doing so. And I see no advantage in helping them in doing so.

I don't really see any advantage in Linux running on a lot of locked and sealed boxes, and that seems to be all that Noika is offering. I'm not really against allowing them to do that, as long as they abide by the licensing agreements. (I'm contemplating using AGPL from now on, though.) But I don't see ANY reason to help them. And I don't see any reason to use licenses friendly to their desires, when they so totally ignore mine.

Personally, if he can do what he wants with the existing licenses, it makes me think that perhaps the licenses need to be changed, but I'm not certain. We don't explicitly forbid using FOSS to send spam, so maybe this is also something that should be tolerated. But I put it in the same class, or possibly worse.

Re:The Bright Line

[Bruce Perens]

Now explain why we would want to help them.

If they paid some of us. I did explain that the Linux developers weren't going to be interested otherwise, but that Nokia could do what they wanted with their own paid engineers if they designed it the way I laid out. I will even help them, at my full consulting rate, if they want, and will put some of that back into my work on Free Software.

Meanwhile, I'm just out to dispel incorrect assumptions about Linux and the Linux developers. We are business-friendly, darn it. We're just not out to give business a gift.

Personally, if he can do what he wants with the existing licenses, it makes me think that perhaps the licenses need to be changed

When I wrote the Open Source definition, I prohibited the prohibition of any sort of field of endeavor whatsoever in an accepted Open Source license. It was a matter of making Open Source practical for people to use. RMS also rejects such a prohibition, and says we should speak out against unethical use rather than prohibit it in our licenses. This just came up in his statement about use of Free Software in the Oyster card system. The example I knew of then (the Berkeley Spice license prohibition on use by the police of South Africa) had persisted long past the end of apartheid, and thus had an effect opposite of what had been intended.

Bruce

Re:The Bright Line

[ShieldW0lf]

They may not care what OS it runs, but they know the difference between contracts and free.

Re:The Bright Line

[HiThere]

OK. When I said changing licenses, I meant along the lines of "I had been planning on switching from GPL2 to GPL3, but now I'm going to seriously consider the AGPL".

OTOH, I do consider what Noika's proposing as being more offensive than sending spam.

Re:The Bright Line

[Bruce Perens]

I'm using AGPL for the software that runs Technocrat.net see the "Source Code" link at the bottom of the page there.

Re:The Bright Line

[SanityInAnarchy]

If Nokia builds interfaces and media applications in userspace using their own code the GPLv3 has nothing to do with it. I was making an assumption, but answer me this -- if they are playing by the rules, why did they say that they "aren't ready to"?

It sounded very much like they were wanting the community to work with them to develop DRM.

Simply having the largest handset manufacturer in the world using Linux gives the platform legitimacy it otherwise DOES NOT HAVE. Huh?

Linux has had a large chunk of the server market for a very long time. It's used in all kinds of embedded devices other than Nokia. And it makes a decent desktop OS.

Linux already has legitimacy. About all Nokia is at this point is another checkbox, so we can say "Oh yeah, IBM uses it, and so does Wall Street, and ILM, and Nokia, and..."

As far as i can tell Nokia IS playing by the rules, the problem is the rules keep fucking changing. The rules are, and have always been, roughly:

If you distribute this code, or any modified version, you must allow redistribution, and also provide the means to modify it, and run the redistributed or modified code in the same context.

GPLv2 encodes this legally as, roughly, that you must distribute sources, or if you statically link against LGPL, you must provide the LGPL source and your own binary object files, so they can be re-linked.

However, DRM changes the game such that you may well have the source and be able to do nothing with it -- not even because of a technical limitation, but because Tivo doesn't want you hacking on your own hardware.

All GPLv3 does is takes it back to the same meaning -- if you lock this software down with DRM, you must allow users to override that DRM, with no side effects.

I stand corrected on contribution, though: Nokia apparently pays for development, at least.

Re:The Bright Line

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot can be frustrating at times, especially when people don't read the article pointed to before they comment. You must be new here.

Re:The Bright Line

[mrsteveman1]

"Huh?

Linux has had a large chunk of the server market for a very long time. It's used in all kinds of embedded devices other than Nokia. And it makes a decent desktop OS."

My point is, Linux is just now breaking into this market, there are some niche devices using it, motorola does and some other Nokia phones do, but up to this point it has been a minority compared to symbian, WinCE, and now the ARM branch of OS X. Having the largest phone manufacturer in the world pushing Linux hard (hell they OWN TrollTech now), means it is a serious platform now for mainstream phones, the ones everyone has in their pockets and doesn't even realize the OS they run. Those phones, not $700 internet tablets or open source project phones like openmoko.

Thats the legitimacy im talking about, when random phones are running Linux and no one seems surprised about it, and end users don't even know, because its so widespread.

"However, DRM changes the game such that you may well have the source and be able to do nothing with it -- not even because of a technical limitation, but because Tivo doesn't want you hacking on your own hardware."

I think that's the subject of this article actually. If Nokia builds proprietary DRM apps in userspace it doesn't affect GPL software at all, there is no issue whatsoever, and the GPL source they use and release can be used elsewhere regardless of the DRM.

Tivo locks their platform, at least the DirecTivo and the new TivoHD, because they are obligated to protect the hardware and other software in the system that is in charge of decrypting service broadcasts. This isn't a "screw over your users" restriction, this is a "protect our service against theft" issue, they can't allow people to hack around in the system and unlock protected services.

Now, the rules do in fact keep changing, when TiVo started using that GPL code there was no such "freedom to tinker" provision in the license, so the FSF specifically changed the new V3 license to allow for it. Thats changing the rules, and TiVo is quite likely to ignore V3 software because they have very valid reasons to lock their platform, especially the DirecTivo.

I can't imagine there is anything else they would want to screw with in the GPL parts of their software stack, other than perhaps preventing modification of the kernel, something the kernel license doesn't prohibit at all, and linus himself has no problem with this sort of locking.

Re:The Bright Line

[gcobb]

Now explain why we would want to help them.

If they paid some of us. I did explain that the Linux developers weren't going to be interested otherwise, but that Nokia could do what they wanted with their own paid engineers if they designed it the way I laid out. I will even help them, at my full consulting rate, if they want, and will put some of that back into my work on Free Software.
I don't think this is about licences: it is about developers. Nokia want developers to contribute, even though they believe things like SIM-locks and DRM are necessary realities.

As I said in my post to the maemo-users discussion about this, there are some developers (including me) who do accept that. I am willing to accept SIM-locks (although not US-style application locks) and I would even accept some DRM if it was used differently (optional, and provided users with considerable discounts for using it).

I am willing to contribute my time, effort and intellectual property, as long as this remains my favourite toy. In exchange, I would like Nokia to use their commercial power to do things like implement DRM in a fair way.

Re:The Bright Line

[PastaLover]

Now explain why we would want to help them. GPL code can be used in a lot of ways, and perhaps Noika can use it in the way they desire. But I have no desire to help them in doing so. And I see no advantage in helping them in doing so.

The upside about having linux run on these cellphones is that porting existing applications and writing new ones for this platform will become easier. For many people it will not matter if the phone itself is locked down, rather it only matters that they will be able to write their own applications or modify existing ones and deploy with minimum hassle. If Nokia is against that, well then they're barking up the wrong tree and their relation with the open source community will necessarily be a cold and distant one. But if in the process of trying to make the address book work a little bit better, or get your new nifty game running you happen to find and fix some bugs in their code, well it's only natural you'd try to get your fix upstream.

Personally I think they were more trying to say something along the lines of "look, even with linux on it there will be some things we can't allow you to do", which for a lot of people will probably be fine. After all, there's plenty of windows open source projects as well, the propietary nature of their platform doesn't seem to bother them very much...

Re:The Bright Line

[Bruce Perens]

That's fair.

I think that Nokia has missed some obvious things that would have helped them build the Maemo community, too. Like, where's the distribution? Downloading applications from all of those different repositories and crossing your fingers that they will work is sub-optimal, they could have put more effort into integration and would have community cooperation on that.

Re:The Bright Line

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not in it for your Empire, either, and nobody hates Open Source except Microsoft & Partners, Inc.

Re:The Bright Line

[SanityInAnarchy]

Thats the legitimacy im talking about, when random phones are running Linux and no one seems surprised about it, and end users don't even know, because its so widespread. And the same is true in many other places. BSD is in pretty much every modern network stack. Some flavor of Unix, and most often Linux, is in a majority of webservers -- millions of people use Google every day without thinking about the fact that it runs Linux.

If you mean "legitimacy within the mobile industry", fine, though it would show how myopic that industry is if they haven't seen it coming from the places Linux already owns. But Linux has more than justified its existence.

This isn't a "screw over your users" restriction, this is a "protect our service against theft" issue You can paint every DRM issue as a "protect our product/service against 'theft'" issue. I choose to view every DRM issue as a "users get screwed over, whether or not that was the intent" issue.

Now, the rules do in fact keep changing, when TiVo started using that GPL code there was no such "freedom to tinker" provision in the license Because there was no need to -- in fact, I don't think anyone, at the time, suspected that we would ever get hardware such that the source code alone was not enough to ensure freedom to tinker.

But if you look at the history of it, the whole reason for GNU and the GPL in the first place is simple: RMS had a clever hack he'd done to the old printer drivers, to help with paper jams. The lab bought a new printer, but the new printer didn't come with source code. After finally tracking down the guy who wrote the drivers, that guy basically said that even if he still had the source, there was no way he could legally give it away.

That is why GNU exists -- because RMS wanted to be able to fix (tinker with) his printer driver.

linus himself has no problem with this sort of locking. Linus is just another human. He writes a kernel, and that's pretty much it. I agree with him on some things, and disagree on others.

Simple example: Linus has had serious problems with GNOME, and serious problems trying to submit a patch to fix those problems. Yet KDE works just fine. He pretty much just tells people to use KDE now. I use KDE, and I like that endorsement, but obviously, not everyone agrees.

Re:The Bright Line

[mrsteveman1]

The thing is, stuff like satellite television HAS to be encrypted, and they protect that system quite actively. So if TiVo wants to make a box with that satellite system integrated, they have to protect it or there won't be a box at all.

That isn't the same sort of "we sold you this song but you can't do what you want with it". Granted content owners are pushing much further than "you paid for service so we let you use the content", i realize they are dictating terms of use, but at the basic level satellite HAS to be DRM'd to prevent service theft.

Thats why i believe TiVo is being so protective, and why i don't have as much of a problem with what they did. I don't like it, but i understand.

"I don't think anyone, at the time, suspected that we would ever get hardware such that the source code alone was not enough to ensure freedom to tinker.:

You CAN still tinker with the software, you just can't run modified copies of that software on the hardware, and the hardware isn't covered by the GPL, so it doesn't really apply.

Re:The Bright Line

[Sloppy]

I don't think Nokia is taking the wrong position here, they have to satisfy a number of different interests,

Their main interest should be in maximizing profits through sales. And it is, but the problem is that their sales are to carriers rather than users.

I think we clearly have a situation where service/phone bundling is harming the market for phones, harming the utility of the devices, and harming consumers.

When a manufacturer gets up on a stage and explains that they wish for their device to work against their users' interest (that's what DRM is) and hope that other developers will not oppose them, we have a problem with that manufacturer and should be scrutinizing the forces that have led them so far astray. So just what are these "different interests" and more importantly: why should they be respected?

Re:The Bright Line

[Sloppy]

They care whether or not the damn thing works. If a device obeys DRM, then it doesn't quite work.

Re:The Bright Line

[SanityInAnarchy]

The thing is, stuff like satellite television HAS to be encrypted Why?

That isn't the same sort of "we sold you this song but you can't do what you want with it". That is exactly the effect. We sold you access to this channel, but you can't do what you want with it.

at the basic level satellite HAS to be DRM'd to prevent service theft. It seems to me that it has pretty much the same amount of effectiveness as any other DRM, though. Which is, "None at all."

Thats why i believe TiVo is being so protective, and why i don't have as much of a problem with what they did. I don't like it, but i understand. I don't much care what they do -- so long as they write the software. If they use my software, they play by my rules.

You CAN still tinker with the software, you just can't run modified copies of that software on the hardware Or, in other words, you can't still tinker with the software. You can port it to different hardware, sure, but as it stands, you can't tinker with the software which is in that device -- which would very likely be the whole point to having the source code.

Think back to the RMS story, and imagine telling this to a pissed-off RMS: "Ok, you can have the source code to this printer driver, but you can't use it with our printer." In what way is that helpful?

Yes, it's better than nothing, but it misses the point.

Re:The Bright Line

[mrsteveman1]

Satellite has to be encrypted because they broadcast everything all the time, over an entire country. If they don't encrypt it, people can receive it without paying, its a compromise. They need to just quit broadcasting everything at the same time, just like cable needs to quit using the entire coax line. IP transmission on demand is the future.

If they quit doing that, this sort of DRM likely wouldn't be necessary, and at that case i agree, the DRM is anti-consumer and completely ridiculous.

We do diverge here a bit, i value having the source for certain things simply because i can make use of it elsewhere, and i can see what its doing. I'm not as concerned about modifying software in place, though i realize other people value this greatly.

Re:The Bright Line

[SanityInAnarchy]

Satellite has to be encrypted because they broadcast everything all the time, over an entire country. If they don't encrypt it, people can receive it without paying, its a compromise. That's a reason why they do it, not why they have to. It's heavily ad-supported already -- seriously, they've got commercial breaks every five minutes, and every ten minutes or so, there's a small chunk of actual TV in which 25% of the screen is not taken up by an animated ad -- with audio!

I haven't looked at the economics of it, but it really does seem like satellite could operate on pretty much the same principles as over-the-air TV.

I value having the source for certain things simply because i can make use of it elsewhere, and i can see what its doing. I'm not as concerned about modifying software in place, though i realize other people value this greatly. I value both quite a lot.

I value being able to understand what's going on, and use it elsewhere, because of some good experiences with open source projects which were made to be hacked up. (In particular, Capistrano has close to no documentation, but very readable source. Before reading that source, I'd have dismissed it out of hand; after reading the source, I even sent in a patch, and it now does pretty much exactly what I want.)

I also value modifying the source in-place, due to something very similar to RMS' printer problem. I had an ATI video card, and I was trying to get it working on Linux. The problem was, this was Linux 2.4, which had no built-in AGP support, and straight PCI isn't fast enough -- so ATI had embedded AGP support in their drivers. And, thankfully, they'd separated generic stuff like this AGP code out into the open source chunk -- there was still a binary blob, but I didn't have to touch it.

So, for some strange reason, the video card was properly setup and always autodetected by the motherboard as AGP 3.0 (despite tweaking the BIOS, I couldn't change this), yet the ATI drivers saw it as AGP 2.0, or 2.5, or something, and refused to work.

So I opened up the source for those ATI drivers, commented out the autodetection code, and replaced it with the single line which set it to AGP 3.0. Were I to do this today, I might put some effort into figuring out how to enable this via an insmod (now modprobe) argument, but back then, I hardly had to know C to do this.

And it worked. Perfectly, beautifully.

So that is a concern for me -- especially something like a TiVo, which, more likely than not, isn't going to be setup perfectly for me. That, and the fact that not only can others develop patches and mods, but I can get those patches and mods without them having to go through TiVo for approval.

It's a completely different purpose, though. I'd argue that modifying in-place is mostly useful for that kind of brutal hack, whereas modifying and porting is more useful for building something new and interesting.

Re:The Bright Line

[mrsteveman1]

They would probably claim that the ads support the channels and their owners even though people also pay for those channels to some degree. That side of things is probably somewhat separate from the business of broadcasting the signals to the satellite and then down etc.

The service fees for DirecTV I imagine go mostly toward maintaining the infrastructure needed to broadcast from space, I mean they own their own satellites don't they? That's gotta be expensive

I think the entire thing has become inflated, they make horrible shows and waste money all over the place while shoving 20 minutes of ads into a 60 minute show timeslot.

Anyway its not gonna change any time soon i think, when DirecTV started out, IP over satellite wasn't possible, the only thing they could do was broadcast everything at once and try to protect the stream with encryption. So they are stuck maintaining that system for the moment and Tivo had to play into it when they released the DirecTivo.

Now, cablecard and the TivoHD are another story, they could easily move to IPTV and drop all this crap but its really about control for them anymore, they want to do way more than just prevent service theft.

I do get your point about the ATI driver though :D

Re:The Bright Line

[SanityInAnarchy]

Anyway its not gonna change any time soon i think Really depends how fast someone can get IPTV working. I think we need more projects like Sanctuary -- though that seems to have mysteriously evaporated / been bought.

Re:The Bright Line

[sumdumass]

Actually, if we are still talking about the majority of people, DRM doesn't mean is doesn't work. They will never attempt to turn a TIVO into a toaster. They will never write a program that sorts their video collection and sends the list to your phone so you can call the TIVO and tell it what to play instead of using the remote right next to you.

That's right. It the product continues to meet the advertised specifications and work like it did when they purchased it, the majority of people think it just works and don't care about anything else.

Re:The Bright Line

[sumdumass]

Sorry for getting in the game so late but I take issue with the printer driver story being used as access to the hardware. First, he modified the software on the computer, not the printer. He didn't flash any firmware or anything into the printer.

You see, we are talking apples to oranges here. He change the communication streams being sent and listened to what was being received. TO say that gives you a right or some inherent notion of being able to execute code on any hardware, you really have to ignore reality.

You may be able to do that in order to push your agenda, I have problems with it. It seems that if you have to more or less lie and stretch the truth to make your point, then your point isn't worth making. And when your making your point in a way that pushes the lie to free software, well, it hurts the movement of free software when any intelligent person looks at the situation and thinks "what a crock of shit".

Re:The Bright Line

[SanityInAnarchy]

First, he modified the software on the computer, not the printer. He didn't flash any firmware or anything into the printer. I see your nitpick and raise you an analogy.

TO say that gives you a right or some inherent notion of being able to execute code on any hardware, you really have to ignore reality. No, what gives me the right to execute code on any hardware is the fact that I bought that hardware, which makes it mine.

Not even going to respond to the accusations of lying...

Re:The Bright Line

[sumdumass]

When you buy hardware that only does certain things, then you purchased it knowing full well what it would do. If you decide to make it do something it was never represented as being able to do and break it, that's your fault not the manufacturers who won't let it boot without a certain file bein present. And yes, I'm talking about TIVOs and shit like that.

You didn't buy a general purpose computer, you purchased an appliance the does certain things. It you attempt to make it do something else and break it, tough titties. You didn't buy hardware, you bought something that had a restriction to it's use.

Re:The Bright Line

[SanityInAnarchy]

If you decide to make it do something it was never represented as being able to do and break it, that's your fault Indeed -- my fault, I voided the warranty, fine. Kind of like opening up a laptop -- you get to a certain point, and there are stickers which say "Warranty void if sticker removed."

I have not yet found a laptop manufacturer which goes beyond these stickers and rivets the case shut. Even Apple doesn't do shit like that anymore.

Re:The Bright Line

[sumdumass]

Lets take a tivo, when you buy a TIVO you aren't buying a general purpose computer, you are buying a TIVO that does certain thing. If you alter it and it doesn't work any more, it is your fault.

This isn't about voiding a warranty, it is about a product protecting the content and actions it takes from you doing things that bypass those protections and still working as designed. When you buy an appliance, it is just that, and appliance that does certain things. A Tivo is an appliance. When you change that appliance to operate in any way that the manufacturer didn't intend it to work as, then if it doesn't work as the manufacturer intended, it is your fault. This is true DRM or not.

You say that you have yet to find a laptop that rivits the case shut. Probably true, but you have seen laptops that won't offer support or drivers for different operating systems and when you change that, they drop support for it even to the point of not warranting the hardware. If you put windows 98 on something that came with windows CE or XP and the sound or network does work anymore, guess what you broke it and it doesn't work as the manufacturer intended. It is your fault and no different.

But all the talk of a laptop is pointless because the DRM is being used in appliances like Game consoles, Cell Phones, and Tivo PVRs and such, not general purpose computers. It doesn't matter that they use the same hardware or similar hardware or that you can make the hardware work like a general purpose computer, when you buy it, you buy something with limitations imposed by the manufacturer and when you go altering things and something doesn't work as intended anymore, it is your fault. Plain and simple.

Re:The Bright Line

[SanityInAnarchy]

This isn't about voiding a warranty I understand. I think it should be.

When you buy an appliance, it is just that, and appliance that does certain things. When that appliance is running software -- in particular, when it's running my software -- that changes the game a bit.

You say that you have yet to find a laptop that rivits the case shut. Probably true, but But my analogy works then. Shocking!

you have seen laptops that won't offer support or drivers for different operating systems I have not, however, seen a laptop which goes out of its way to prevent a different operating system from working with it.

I don't expect them to help me -- that takes effort and money. I wish they wouldn't keep trying to hinder me -- that also takes effort and money, and ultimately fails at their intended purpose.

the DRM is being used in appliances like Game consoles, Cell Phones, and Tivo PVRs and such, not general purpose computers. And you know, I have appliances like air conditioners, TVs, and high-powered drills -- far from general purpose -- which also don't rivet their cases shut. Sure, they can't support it if I start collecting parts to build a robot, or if I try to fool/fix the thermostat on a weak air conditioner, but they don't actively try to stop me.

You seem to be having problems with the concept of an "analogy".

Re:The Bright Line

[sumdumass]

I understand. I think it should be.

But it isn't.. And I don't think it should.

When that appliance is running software -- in particular, when it's running my software -- that changes the game a bit.

No, No it doesn't. When that appliance is operating in any way that the manufacturer didn't intend, then it is your fault it breaks. An appliance by definition is a limited use device. You changing the use in no way obligates the manufacturer to ensure it continues to run.

But my analogy works then. Shocking!

Only if you close your eyes and wish really hard. We are dealing with reality here, wake up and join us.

I have not, however, seen a laptop which goes out of its way to prevent a different operating system from working with it.

I would call not creating drivers, not warranting defective parts, reformatting hidden partitions in an obscure code in order to keep their recovery partition in tact so they don't have to send CDs, I would call all that going out of their way. But then again, we are talking about a lawful act of putting something in place to ensure copyright isn't violated. Unless your installing different operating systems violate copyright, then I'm not sure how relevant it is. Of course I already mentioned that.

I don't expect them to help me -- that takes effort and money. I wish they wouldn't keep trying to hinder me -- that also takes effort and money, and ultimately fails at their intended purpose. I thought you just said they didn't... Maybe your just not sure of what your talking about. But in an appliance like a Tivo or whatever, certain parts of the hardware are specifically designed to control of copyrighted works so when you defeat that control, don't expect it to work.

And you know, I have appliances like air conditioners, TVs, and high-powered drills -- far from general purpose -- which also don't rivet their cases shut. Sure, they can't support it if I start collecting parts to build a robot, or if I try to fool/fix the thermostat on a weak air conditioner, but they don't actively try to stop me.

Wow.. You are dense. If you take it apart to collect parts for your robot, they won't work as the manufacturer intended. Do you see how that is? You take the motor from an airconditioner and it doesn't condition and cool the air any more. You take the motor from a drill, and guess what it doesn't drill anymore. You have proved my point.

You seem to be having problems with the concept of an "analogy".

You seem to be having a problem with apples to apples comparisons. Just because it is a fruit, apples to oranges comparisons only cloud the issue with less intelligent people thinking they are getting somewhere.

Re:The Bright Line

[SanityInAnarchy]

No, No it doesn't. My software, as in software that I've written.

When that appliance is operating in any way that the manufacturer didn't intend, And they are using my code in a way I didn't intend.

I would call not creating drivers That's lack of effort, not a deliberate attempt.

not warranting defective parts Never had a defective part refused because I'd installed Linux. At the worst, I might have to restore Windows to prove that it is actually the hardware which is defective.

And again -- this is a lack of effort. It is not as if they deliberately don't support Linux -- rather, that they deliberately choose to train their phone operators to diagnose Windows problems.

reformatting hidden partitions in an obscure code in order to keep their recovery partition in tact so they don't have to send CDs Except they still send CDs, you just have to request them first. And who says the code is intended to thwart Linux? It seems it would be useful for their own tools.

Unless your installing different operating systems violate copyright, then I'm not sure how relevant it is. Unless my installing different operating systems on my TiVo violates copyright, I'm not sure how relevant it is to copyright violation.

I thought you just said they didn't... Laptop manufacturers don't. "Appliance" manufacturers do.

But in an appliance like a Tivo or whatever, certain parts of the hardware are specifically designed to control of copyrighted works so when you defeat that control, don't expect it to work. Ah, I see what you mean by "dealing with reality."

In various Muslim countries, women have pretty much no rights. I believe that is wrong. You seem to believe that it's her own fault if a woman visits to that country -- maybe true, but beside the point.

Let me be very clear: I am not expecting to buy a Tivo, take it apart, recompile the OS, and have it work. I realize that will not happen. I also realize Tivo won't help me if I do that.

I do, however, find it ludicrous that Tivo would put forth an effort to prevent me from doing so, which they have -- you don't dispute that. This is the collateral damage I speak of -- Tivo likely doesn't care what I build with my hardware, all they care about is the copy protection. But that copy protection severely limits what I could build.

And it is downright insulting if they are going to use my (free) labor to build such a thing.

If you take it apart to collect parts for your robot, they won't work as the manufacturer intended. Do you see how that is? ... You take the motor from a drill, and guess what it doesn't drill anymore. You have proved my point. I take the motor from a drill, and it still motors. I take a motor from something else, put it in the drill, and it still drills.

It's not as though there is C4 inside the drill, designed to detonate if I tamper with it.

It is these two concepts which you still seem unable to grasp: The GPL was intended, clearly and plainly, to ensure a right to tinker, with hardware -- the rules have not changed, only a loophole has been closed. And there is a considerable difference between refusing to help and actually hindering -- certainly to the extent that these "appliance" manufacturers go.

Maybe you have no problem with it -- in which case, we'll just disagree, and there's no point continuing this. But instead, you're reiterating the same arguments, and calling names -- I guess there still isn't a point in continuing this.

Re:The Bright Line

[sumdumass]

My software, as in software that I've written.

It doesn't matter. If it is software you written and kept private or released for public use. When you buy an appliance, it only does what the manufacturer intend it to do and their obligation to you stops there. That means even if it does use your software, when you alter it and the device stops playing DRMed MP3s or receiving encrypted television channels, it isn't their problem. They have no obligation to make the thing work anyway other then they intended.

And they are using my code in a way I didn't intend.

Are they? Did you out those stipulations in the contract? I did. They are using my code too and I allow them to do it.

That's lack of effort, not a deliberate attempt.

It's the same thing for all intents and purposed seeing how you attempting to compare a general putpose computer to an appliance.

Never had a defective part refused because I'd installed Linux. At the worst, I might have to restore Windows to prove that it is actually the hardware which is defective.

And again -- this is a lack of effort. It is not as if they deliberately don't support Linux -- rather, that they deliberately choose to train their phone operators to diagnose Windows problems.

Wow.. And you don't see how putting it back to the way the manufacturer intended it to be in order to get the replacement parts as the manufactuer only being obligated to make it work the way they intended it to. Interesting, I have a laptop that seg faults every time I attempt to install linux with the 2.4 kernel in it. Perhaps I can make them fix it.....

Except they still send CDs, you just have to request them first. And who says the code is intended to thwart Linux? It seems it would be useful for their own tools.

LOL... It isn't intended to thwart linux, it is intended to maintain it's operation as they intended it to be. These are two entirely different concepts. And for the record, the charge for the CDs. You actually have to purchase them in most cases.

Unless my installing different operating systems on my TiVo violates copyright, I'm not sure how relevant it is to copyright violation.

When your software gains control of the devices used to control access to copyrighted materials it does. Look, I'm not saying TIVO is right in locking out users. Far from that. I'm saying that Tivo isn't the only type of DRM out there and past situations don't mean they are the only possible scenarios. But Tivo does have the rights to maintain control of their content distribution systems that are in the Tivo. You can't argue against that because it is built into the law that makes copyright valid.

Ah, I see what you mean by "dealing with reality."

In various Muslim countries, women have pretty much no rights. I believe that is wrong. You seem to believe that it's her own fault if a woman visits to that country -- maybe true, but beside the point.

Wow.. Just Wow.. A manufacturer protecting the content distribution on their device is akin to genital mutilation and human oppression. You really, really, really, need a reality check here.

Let me be very clear: I am not expecting to buy a Tivo, take it apart, recompile the OS, and have it work. I realize that will not happen. I also realize Tivo won't help me if I do that.

I do, however, find it ludicrous that Tivo would put forth an effort to prevent me from doing so, which they have -- you don't dispute that. This is the collateral damage I speak of -- Tivo likely doesn't care what I build with my hardware, all they care about is the copy protection. But that copy protection severely limits what I could build.

And it is downright insulting if they are going to use my (free) labor to b

Re:The Bright Line

[SanityInAnarchy]

And they are using my code in a way I didn't intend.

Are they?

Well, let's see. Um... duh... YES. Pretty much because I say so.

Did you out those stipulations in the contract?

Does it matter?

Now, they may well be using it in a way they are legally allowed to. We've established it. Stop bringing that up -- it's a strawman.

But certainly, if I released code under the GPL, it was code that I intended people to be able to tinker with. Whether or not that is what is actually stated in the license is irrelevant.

And who says the code is intended to thwart Linux?

LOL... It isn't intended to thwart linux

Thanks, that proves my point. Unless their intent was to thwart Linux, this was an incidental restriction, not a deliberate one.

it is intended to maintain it's operation as they intended it to be.

So, is your point (roughly) that it wasn't intended to thwart Linux specifically, but it was intended to prevent configurations other than the one they approve?

I really don't see it, given that this doesn't make it any harder to use an alternative OS -- it only makes it easier to use the provided one.

In reality, they pretty much ignore Linux, and attempt to help Windows. I see this as very different than if they deliberately tried to stop custom software (Trusted Computing, say). In one case, effort was expended to help Windows. In the other case, effort was expended to prevent certain kinds of use.

And for the record, the charge for the CDs.

For the record, in most cases, the CDs are extremely cheap ($5? $10? $2?) and it's sometimes possible to talk them down. Additionally, the restore partition can be backed up -- nothing to "defeat" in order to do that, either, you just need a blank DVD to put it on.

When your software gains control of the devices used to control access to copyrighted materials it does.

Still not very much to do with it, unless you mean the DMCA anti-circumvention clause.

I'm saying that Tivo isn't the only type of DRM out there and past situations don't mean they are the only possible scenarios.

Name a kind of DRM which provides more options to the user than no DRM at all. The best I can do is indirectly -- Napster, Rhapsody, Zune. Which means that:

I'm not saying TIVO is right in locking out users. Far from that.

Pretty much any kind of DRM will, by definition, be locking the users out of something. And certainly, the kind of DRM that causes GPL problems will, by definition, be locking the users out of more than just making a copy.

I'll grant you that it may be possible to come up with a kind of DRM which only restricts what it was intended to -- though I have never seen it. (Quick example: CD-based copy protection restricts me from installing that software on a computer with no optical drive, or from removing the drive while using the software.)

Wow.. Just Wow.. A manufacturer protecting the content distribution on their device is akin to genital mutilation and human oppression. You really, really, really, need a reality check here.

Thanks -- looks like you don't actually have an argument against my analogy.

Note: I am not drawing a parallel in magnitude, only in form. There is the way the real world is, and the way I would like it to be. My arguments which describe the way I think the world should work are not invalidated by the way it does.

Most of your last post, and a fair bit of this one, is still telling me that "this is the way it is" -- and more relevantly, you're talking about legal rights, whereas I was talking about moral ones.

I assume when Nokia says that they're "not ready to play by the rules yet", it doesn't mean that they're unable to follow the law -- if that were true, the EFF would be suing them. No, it mean

Insufficient Rights

[Save_Clippy]

You do not have sufficient rights to view comments before this one.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over

[Billly Gates]

Nope Nokia will just develop its own os or use netbsd.

Drm is here to stay whether we like it or not. Their whole business model is to lock up and take ownership of other people's phones so they can charge for apps and ringtones.

MS has interest in this too with TCPA and signed executables. Businesses want this too in an effort to prevent piracy. Future versions of windows will be locked to signed drm executables as well and its the wave of the future.

What's IMHO the problem here...

[Enleth]

When I learned electronics, engineers built products by soldering together resistors and transistors. But today, the job of engineers is to build derivative works by combining units of intellectual property owned by third parties. That's not what they're trained for, and it's a mine-field of potential litigation for every company that puts software in its products This is exactly why, while being fascinated with electronics and embedded systems, I don't want to work in the consumer product industry when I graduate. Even if the pure research work in the field pays less than product development. I feel that the "engineering" constrained by sales requirements and legal gibblerish is not really engineering anymore and, being able to see its outcomes - dozens of devices that show unspeakable amounts of absolute blockheadedness and lack of ANY thought in their design - I don't want to have anything to do with it.

Re:What's IMHO the problem here...

[serviscope_minor]

Even if the pure research work in the field pays less than product development.

Don't go in to electronice research unless you have a passion for chip fabbing. If you want a researchy job where you get to build cool stuff, then you want a research job where you need to build said cool stuff to get the research done. You can get thin kind of thing in science research if you choose the right branch and department. Basically choose a field where building cool stuff is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Re:What's IMHO the problem here...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I feel that the "engineering" constrained by sales requirements and legal gibblerish is not really engineering anymore

As someone who works in the embedded software industry: engineering is all about creating something within those constraints; without them, it's not engineering anymore - it's research.

Re:What's IMHO the problem here...

[Enleth]

Actually I'm aiming for robotics, which is IMO one of the few electrical engineering-related fields where almost no typical consumer products exist, while there's plenty of research aimed at building cool stuff and, if one really needs more profits, quite a bit of industrial desgin, which actually isn't all that bad because most of the time the "customers" are engineers, too.

Re:What's IMHO the problem here...

[kipman725]

I signed up for an EEE degree... I hope I don't end up destititute for laughing evertime somone says IP (what a silly term). Mabey I should learn madarin and move the china. I picked up a free book on analoug chip design and it looked like fun feild with lots of complex problems and scope for orginal solutions. Is this also infected with this IP crap? (ie you have to pay for each bandgap referance or something).

Re:What's IMHO the problem here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Research with market constraints is engineering.
Engineering with legal gibberish is bureaucracy.

Re:What's IMHO the problem here...

[jhoger]

There are many constraints on engineers who work in the real world. You won't usually get a budget to make a product that no one wants to buy, for example. You won't get a budget for a product that will be so expensive to make that the target market cannot afford it.

The patent issues are there and by and large, unless you work in an IP company, it isn't the focus of your job, though you may spend a month out of a year working on a patent or figuring out how to work around a patent.

Academicians have different constraints. They need to get their research funded. They have to continually get their research published. In the end they have to accomplish something or the job/funding will dry up. And good luck getting funding for stuff no one cares about.

In the end though I think the bargain is heavily weighted in favor of the private sector for doing interesting work. You just need to find or found the right company. There's nothing more satisfying than knowing the work YOU did is built into a shipping product that thousands or millions of people will derive value from.

Just publishing a paper is, well, just publishing a paper. It may never be apparent to you that your work has any particular impact on anyone.

Re:What's IMHO the problem here...

[Enleth]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough - of course, there are constraints in the real world, but in research and industrial design those constraints are usually practical and reasonable and, in the case of designing a product, the requirements will boild down to "make something solid and useful". That's still good. It's the consumer product design that calls for "make something crippled that breaks just after the warranty expires, restricts the user and is awkward to operate - millions of idiots will buy it anyway". That's what I don't want to be doing.

wait, what?

[KevMar]

I figured you could seperate your code like this. But I didn't think you could distribute them together?

I guess they are not distributing it to anyone else, just useing it on their own devices.

So if I want to include some GPL2 code in my project, I have to seperate it into its own library or plug-in module. Then I don't have to release the rest of my code under the GPL2, just the other module? That does not sound right to me.

Re:wait, what?

[Hatta]

You can include GPL code on a proprietary operating system. What is the difference here?

Re:wait, what?

[mrsteveman1]

If your library is LGPL and you link to it dynamically you don't have to release as GPL any app making use of that library.

And, putting software on a device and giving it to users IS distributing it, if they mix GPL code into a proprietary DRM app or something, they must either stop using the GPL code or GPL their own app, simply saying "we just put it on the device" will get them sued.

Re:wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you RTFA, you'll see that he explicitly recommends against dynamically linking proprietary with GPL code (the example being Linux kernel modules, but plugins or libraries applies equally). It's a legal gray area, he says, and the whole idea is BRIGHT lines, not gray ones.

You can write a program that uses public system calls (dbus calls, I think, or sockets would be the userland-to-userland equivalent). Or you can keep the Free Software away from the proprietary entirely.

This has nothing to do with distributing A and B together vs. separately. The issue is whether or not B is a derivative work of A and thus legal to distribute *at all*.

Re:wait, what?

[SanityInAnarchy]

If your library is LGPL and you link to it dynamically you don't have to release as GPL any app making use of that library. Actually, you can link it statically if you like, as long as you provide enough object files that your users can modify the LGPL library and relink it with your proprietary app.

Re:wait, what?

[Bruce Perens]

Not a library or plug-in module. It's got to be a separate program.

From the ones that infected the world with Symbian

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL keeps all those monopoly-centric manufacturers in check, fortunately.
The comment about the fact that they can do what they want with Linux while within the GPL boundaries, is both right and wrong.
Right from a legal POV, wrong because they CAN'T do what they want, because what they REALLY want is to lock down Linux beyond what allowed by the GPL.

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

...will it run Linux?

He's right.. this is the future

[Cheesey]

This is exactly how digital restrictions of any kind can be compatible with free software. You have a division between free and non-free, and as Perens suggests, maybe it's the kernel/user interface, or physical separation, or a virtual machine. What matters is that the division exists and that it preserves all of the software freedoms that the licence requires.

Personally I think virtual machines are the way to go. You put your free software in one virtual machine and your GSM stack/software radio/DRM code/etc. in another, and run them both using a hypervisor. That way, you get all the benefits of free software without having to put the non-free components in hardware or on a separate CPU. Oddly enough, support for this kind of operation already exists in CPUs, e.g. ARM's Trustzone. Clearly manufacturers have been thinking about how to combine open software with secure components, and their solution is Perens' bright lines.

Virtualisation is exactly how we will get the flexibility and openness we need in small computers without losing the features that network operators demand. Of course it's not a pure free software system any more, but you don't have the source for your x86 CPU microcode, so you're already using a hybrid system that runs both free and non-free code. The best advice is not to worry about it, and enjoy the improved flexibility that you get from being able to run your own code on *most* of the system, instead of none of it.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[mrsteveman1]

Yea, but thats not enough for some people. TiVo didn't actually violate the GPL license either and they got attacked quite a bit.

Granted they made the hardware measure the boot process before allowing it to boot, but the core problem is the same.

People aren't going to be happy about a company using Linux on one hand, while locking the platform in some way.

Freedom to tinker will show its head here sooner or later.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[morgan_greywolf]

That way, you get all the benefits of free software without having to put the non-free components in hardware or on a separate CPU. But you already don't have to use virtualization. There's nothing to stop me from writing and running compiled C code on top of a Linux kernel and glibc. If it were a problem, we wouldn't have closed applications like Google Earth or Skype. Both the Linux kernel and glibc contain necessary license exceptions which allow this to happen.

Why add the overhead of virtualization if it's not necessary?

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[Anonymous Coward]

People aren't going to be happy about a company using Linux on one hand, while locking the platform in some way.

These companies have the option of not using Linux - but purchasers would still re-engineer the product to better fit their desired use. There's only one problem here; simpletons who don't understand that DRM and technical restrictions are a joke!

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[tepples]

But you already don't have to use virtualization. There's nothing to stop me from writing and running compiled C code on top of a Linux kernel and glibc. There's also nothing stopping you from running a debugger on this compiled C code. Nokia wants to stop end users from using a debugger to defeat digital restrictions management.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[MtHuurne]

For simlocks and other limitations that are close to the hardware this approach could work. I believe Sony does something like this for PS3 Linux.

For DRM, it will be more tricky: if for example video goes through an open source layer anywhere between decryption and the video RAM, it can be intercepted. But if that entire path is closed, it will not be easy to make it integrate nicely with the open parts of the system.

Some of today's phone have even more limitations, such as forcing the user to download ringtones, wallpapers, songs etc. exclusively from the telco's portal. Or the iPhone SDK license, which forbids VOIP applications from using the telco's data connection. Limitations like this cannot be enforced on any system that deserves the predicate "open". I don't know if that is Nokia's problem or the telco's, but in a market where telcos subsidize phones, they have a lot of influence on the hardware manufacturers.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[morgan_greywolf]

Isn't a hypervisor essentially a debugger for virtual machines? What I mean is, it's my understanding that virtualization is built on the same technology that debuggers use, with some extra support for it added in the processor. Do I misunderstand?

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[mrsteveman1]

Actually I've come to see the value of DRM, as long as you consider it to be very weak protection it works fine, granted its unnecessary in most cases but there are a few valid uses for it, like digital rentals.

Of course there are companies who want DRM to be a hard lock, unbreakable even if it screws over users in the process by breaking all sorts of other things.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[tepples]

Isn't a hypervisor essentially a debugger for virtual machines? Yes, but the TPM is there to make sure that the hypervisor that your program runs on is identical to the hypervisor that it was intended to run on, not someone else's debugging hypervisor.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[vux984]

Actually I've come to see the value of DRM, as long as you consider it to be very weak protection it works fine, granted its unnecessary in most cases but there are a few valid uses for it, like digital rentals.

Really? I -still- rent DVDs, and rarely bother to make a copy of them, despite that its trivially easy and takes only a few minutes.

If you rent a movie in itunes and it deletes it after its been watched, that will be enough for most people in most cases, even if the file isn't 'protected' beyond that. And if people DO keep a copy of it? So what? If you -could- buy the DVD in 'file form' without packaging, media, distribution, warehousing, and the end user took responsibility for making their own copy... it should really probably cost in the same ballpark as a rental anyway.

I have 500+ DVDs, but since buying a PVR, I buy and rent very few. The PVR I have makes it something of a pain to keep movies that I've recorded, but you know what, I couldn't care less...even if I could easily copy them the odds of me 're-watching' them is almost nil anyway -- there is always something new on the PVR.

Now I realize and agree that this model won't work for music because people will make and use copies. But then 'renting' music has NEVER been a successful business model.

Bottom line DRM doesn't really add anythign to the equation except make pirated media more usable than legally acquired media.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[Alsee]

TiVo didn't actually violate the GPL license

I think they did.

The GPL says that if you distribute an executable, you have to make available *ALL* of the source you used to compile that executable. If you you distribute an executable for a Cray supercomputer, you cannot supply DIFFERENT source code sufficient for a similar program that would run on a Commodore64.

Unless I am mistaken, the TiVo executable has a signature added. That signature is, both in intent and in fact, a functional component of that intended executable. That signature is created and linked to that executable as the final step in compiling that intended final executable. The crypto key used to create that signature is in fact part of the source used and required to compile that executable. Failure to supply the FULL source used to make that executable is a violation of the GPL. They can't ship incomplete source sufficient to compile a similar but different(unsigned) executable that theoretically could run on some other machine.

TiVo knows damn well that an unsigned executable would be incomplete and non-functional if they were to ship it themselves along with with their TiVos. The key to make that signature is a functional part of the source for their intended executable. If they were to include that key then there would be no "TiVoisaztion" issue, we could use that key to successfully compile working modifications.

-

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[mrsteveman1]

You make perfect sense there I just don't believe you.

Code signing doesn't require what you describe, you can sign code that has already been compiled and a system can check that signature before running it.

What TiVo did to protect their systems was cause the firmware to measure the initrd and the initrd i believe measures the kernel, as far as i remember.

It's probably worth noting that Linus doesn't see any problem with what Tivo did, and in reality the core goal of the GPL is to make sure anyone who IMPROVES GPL software releases that code for use by others, especially for other uses.

So in that respect, everything TiVo has done to improve the software, even the kernel, has in fact been released as source. Nowhere in the GPLv2 does it say anything about being able to modify software in place, which is why they moved the goalpost with GPLv3 and abused the license to achieve things the original license had nothing to do with.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

there are a few valid uses for it, like digital rentals. There are a ton of nifty business models that would work if only (a) the laws of physics were different or (b) the government enforced people obeying alternate laws of physics as if they were the real thing.

Of course the cost to society of (a) or (b) is usually much higher than the value returned to society.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

in reality the core goal of the GPL is to make sure anyone who IMPROVES GPL software releases that code for use by others, especially for other uses. Bzzzzt.

1. the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
   
2. the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors,
   
3. the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and
   
4. the freedom to share the changes you make.

--The Foundations of the GPL

In fact, you are free to improve the software all you want for your own personal use and there are no requirements to distribute the changes you've made.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[mrsteveman1]

1. you are free to take the source TiVo releases and use it for whatever you want.

2. you can give it to anyone you want as per the GPLs terms.

3. you can modify the source and still use it for whatever you want.

4. you can give away the source you just modified in step 3 :D

Nowhere in that list does it say "modify in place". You can't possibly twist the definitions given there to include "i can do whatever I want with the hardware you sold me simply because you put Linux on it".

The GPL says you can change the software to suit your needs, for example Apple modifying CUPS to suit their own operating system, or Sun modifying GRUB to boot their own kernel, or indeed anyone taking TiVos modified GPL source and using those improvements elsewhere. They can't lock the code away after improving it, and they haven't done that. They release all source they are required to release, the rest of the software running on a TiVo machine you never had a right to use elsewhere or modify in the first place.

The GPL, and the code released under it that TiVo uses, doesn't dictate what you can or can't run on specific hardware. You are never going to convince me that TiVo should be required to let you run whatever you want on their hardware, and heres why. Take the DirecTivo for instance, this isn't just a MIPS or PPC box, it has DirecTV specific hardware in it including encryption keys, smartcard hardware and other systems designed to protect satellite broadcasts, something DirecTV goes to great lengths to protect and I assume TiVo is also obligated to protect as well. So taken as a whole, TiVo can't allow people to screw with parts of the system that may interfere with things you have no right to screw with, including the parts of the system that protect satellite broadcasts.

Somehow this situation with software licensing went from being one of protecting source code and keeping it available for others to use, into a political situation with the FSF attempting to dictate terms that have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting source code. You can't possibly argue that you should be allowed to screw with anything GPL software comes into contact with.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Why are you arguing against the obvious?

What you call "twist" is exactly the chain of events that caused RMS to start the GNU project in the first place.

RMS had a printer, the driver for the printer was broken, he wanted to fix THAT PRINTER. Not use the driver with some other printer, he wanted the only printer he had to work.

You can't possibly argue that you should be allowed to screw with anything GPL software comes into contact with. Yeah, I don't need the GPL for that. I am flat out arguing that I have the right to screw with anything I own. FULL STOP.
The GPL just makes it easier for me. Don't want to make it easier for me? Don't build your empire on top of GPL'd software, go spend your own development money.

So taken as a whole, TiVo can't allow people to screw with parts of the system that may interfere with things you have no right to screw with, including the parts of the system that protect satellite broadcasts. You realize that is a circular argument, right? The GPL must mean its OK to prevent in place changes because of some contract that Tivo signed with somebody else? The answer is that, under GPL3 and under the intent of earlier GPLv2, Tivo can't do what they did. They found a loophole and exploited it, and that's why GPLv3 closed the loophole.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[mrsteveman1]

I don't care about RMS printer. I do understand why he started the GNU project, yes, but this is 2008 and there are other considerations. As a comparison the RMS printer thing is a poor one, TiVo doesn't need driver support and works perfectly fine out of the box, its a finished usable device people don't need to program or otherwise screw with to make it work with their TV.

"I am flat out arguing that I have the right to screw with anything I own."

Well then, if this is the most important consideration here, then TiVo will die because most users will refuse to buy one of their devices. Of course, most users don't care, which then shines some light on the real issue here. A tiny minority of users want their freedom to alter anything and everything, to the exclusion of all other considerations.

Without the ability to lock their platform TiVo probably never would have been able to release boxes that work directly with things like DirecTV and CableCARD. Those are not anti-consumer technologies the evil content owners want thrust upon the world, they prevent service theft. You can't possibly argue that you should be allowed to easily circumvent service theft protections simply because you like to tinker or because they used GPL software. And you really can't say they should HELP you do so, that's insane.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I don't care about RMS printer. I do understand why he started the GNU project, yes, but this is 2008 and there are other considerations. No, there are no other considerations. If you don't the terms of the GPL, DON"T USE GNU CODE. Simple as that. Why you do think Tivo or anyone else is entitled to violate the terms of the GPL? Because the source code is there? You think that means its in the public domain?

At least now you know your interpretation of the GPL is completely false and you have no reason to repeat that error again.

You can't possibly argue that you should be allowed to easily circumvent service theft protections simply because you like to tinker or because they used GPL software. And you really can't say they should HELP you do so, that's insane. What part of develop your own code do you fail to understand?

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[mrsteveman1]

"No, there are no other considerations."

Look, I pointed out a number of situations where there are more important things to consider, and you ignored them.

"If you don't the terms of the GPL, DON"T USE GNU CODE. Simple as that. Why you do think Tivo or anyone else is entitled to violate the terms of the GPL? Because the source code is there? You think that means its in the public domain?"

I have yet to see any valid claim that TiVo violated the license on the code they use, show me otherwise. You can't, and i know you can't because if they had violated the license they would have been sued already.

"At least now you know your interpretation of the GPL is completely false and you have no reason to repeat that error again."

This isn't my interpretation, that's what the fucking license says, you just don't like it. This is why TiVo hasn't been sued, they haven't violated the license IN ANY WAY. Instead the FSF chose to abuse the new V3 license to prevent TiVo from doing something even Linus himself doesn't care about.

I will quote him here for you:

"The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF says that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*. So the whole "to protect these rights, we take away other rights" argument hinges on the false premise that the new language in GPLv3 is somehow needed. It's not. You still had the right to distribute the software (and modify it), even if the *hardware* is limited to only one version."

-Linus Torvalds, Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Linux Kernel Mailing List

Now, Linus just said exactly what i said before, and he has a VERY firm understanding of the issues involved.

At this point, i seriously think you don't understand whats going on here. You seem to think because they use GPL code in full compliance with the license, they are somehow obligated to meet any number of other random demands that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LICENSE.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I have yet to see any valid claim that TiVo violated the license on the code they use, show me otherwise. That's because I never made that claim. I thought I was clear when I wrote, "under GPL3 and under the intent of earlier GPLv2, Tivo can't do what they did. They found a loophole and exploited it, and that's why GPLv3 closed the loophole." What part of THAT do you fail to understand?

This is why TiVo hasn't been sued, they haven't violated the license IN ANY WAY. What part of loophole and intent to do you fail to understand?

Now, Linus just said exactly what i said before, and he has a VERY firm understanding of the issues involved. No, Linus does not. He has a firm grasp of what HIS goals are. Not what the FSF's goals are.

I mean jesus christ, if RMS's own words aren't enough to convince you of what the FSF's goals are, then I don't know what will. But the least you can do is stop going around mis-stating what the "core goal of the GPL is."

You seem to think because they use GPL code in full compliance with the license, they are somehow obligated to meet any number of other random demands that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LICENSE. Quit making shit up. Seriously. I have clearly stated otherwise. Only someone with an agenda would turn a blind eye to what I wrote and then say that I "seem to think" the exact opposite.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[mrsteveman1]

First: "No, Linus does not. He has a firm grasp of what HIS goals are. Not what the FSF's goals are."

Goals aren't relevant here, what is relevant is the license, and i do believe Linus understands GPLv2 very well.

"What part of loophole and intent to do you fail to understand?"

You may say that V2 has a loophole in it, but I don't believe that. Read my last paragraph to see why.

I'm also not making shit up, you said "If you don't like the terms of the GPL, DON"T USE GNU CODE. Simple as that." I think you're speaking hypothetically about future situations, because *I* was talking about TiVo, and i fully believe they haven't violated the terms of the software they use, its all GPLv2. So as a result, i don't believe they should have to quit using that software.

You also said "Why you do think Tivo or anyone else is entitled to violate the terms of the GPL? Because the source code is there? You think that means its in the public domain?""

I never said TiVo or anyone else should be allowed to violate the terms of the GPLv2, and I never said anything about public domain either. I said they AREN'T violating the license, and you are implying otherwise with all this "DEVELOP YOUR OWN CODE AND STOP USING GNU IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TERMS" talk. Thats why i asked you to show me where they had violated the license because you seemed to be implying they had.

I'm just going to clarify my point and end this, because I'm arguing about TiVo and their lack of a license violation and you're talking about hypothetical situations and demanding people not use the code if they don't like the terms. We aren't arguing about the same thing anymore. I will specify the version of the GPL I'm talking about.

The locks TiVo places to prevent running modifications to GPLv2 software are in the hardware. The firmware on the TiVo (which is not GPL'd) refuses to run any version of Linux other than what it came with. As Linus correctly pointed out, this isn't a violation of the GPLv2 even in spirit or intent, because the GPLv2 doesn't apply to the hardware in any way. Simply running GPLv2 software on a device doesn't suddenly extend the freedoms of the GPLv2 to the hardware itself, because the hardware itself is not GPL'd. Even in TiVos case you still have the software code, they haven't closed it, they aren't keeping it from anyone. You still have every one of the core freedoms the GPLv2 guarantees. The right to run whatever you want on hardware that happened to come with GPL software installed is not one of those freedoms guaranteed by the GPL, even in spirit or intent.

I don't like what TiVo did, I don't think anyone can argue that they want to be locked out of their own devices. I would love to be able to screw with my TiVo, but I can't and I fully understand why. I'm not going to imply they violated the license even in spirit just because i don't like what they did.

Yes v3 might say that you have a right to any keys necessary to alter running software, but TiVo isn't using v3 software, and in any case i suspect these lines in v3 will be thrown out in court because they extend far beyond the realm of software.

I also question the claim that no one foresaw this problem when v2 was written. According to a wikipedia article posted by another commenter, in 1984 Ataris 7800 machine required game roms to be signed or the machine refused to allow use of a special graphics chip. This is a close situation to TiVo but TiVos locks are absolute. Note that the GPLv2 came out in 1991, a number of years after Atari did this, so this is not a new problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_7800#Lockout_features

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Goals aren't relevant here, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO STARTED WITH THE GOAL TALK.

I'm also not making shit up WHAT PART OF, under GPL3 and under the intent of earlier GPLv2, Tivo can't do what they did. They found a loophole and exploited it, and that's why GPLv3 closed the loophole." DO YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND?

never said TiVo or anyone else should be allowed to violate the terms of the GPLv2, YOU MADE A CLAIM AS TO WHAT THE CORE GOAL OF THE GPL WAS. I REFUTED IT YOU REFUSE TO BELIEVE RMS'S OWN WORDS.

I also question the claim that no one foresaw this problem when v2 was written. "NO ONE?" WHO SAID "NO ONE?" YOU SAID IT. QUIT MAKING SHIT UP.

That "no one" at the FSF was aware of what the atari 7800 may or may not have done is unsurprising, the 7800 was a teeny-tiny blip in the market and the only people would have even NOTICED the problem would have been the subset of game developers who needed to get their cartridge signed of the subset of game developers working on the least popular system in the market, which is a far cry from the people at the AI lab at MIT.

If that's the best you can do to refute RMS'S OWN WORDS you should just give it up. You either realize just how ridiculous your justification is or you are delusional.

and in any case i suspect these lines in v3 will be thrown out in court because they extend far beyond the realm of software. Laugh. So you think that a license that grants developers MORE freedom to distribute the code that what copyright does is going to get knocked down and the result will be what? Default copyright restrictions is what, which means tivoization wannabe users won't be able to use GPLv3 licensed software at ALL.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[mrsteveman1]

Fuck RMS, he is irrelevant to this discussion. RMS "own words" are meaningless if you want to debate license issues, he can't arbitrarily reinterpret the license by speaking in public.

All that matters is what the license ACTUALLY SAYS, and both of us spelled out exactly what it says about keeping software free. I'm not even sure where you got the idea that i interpreted the GPL wrong, clearly i haven't.

"YOU MADE A CLAIM AS TO WHAT THE CORE GOAL OF THE GPL WAS. I REFUTED IT YOU REFUSE TO BELIEVE RMS'S OWN WORDS."

You didn't refute anything, you repeated what i said in more detail by spelling out those 4 freedoms:

"in reality the core goal of the GPL is to make sure anyone who IMPROVES GPL software releases that code for use by others, especially for other uses.
Bzzzzt.

      1. the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
      2. the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors,
      3. the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and
      4. the freedom to share the changes you make."

Yea, you spelled out exactly what i said. Nowhere in that list does it say anything about hardware or freedom to tinker.

"Laugh. So you think that a license that grants developers MORE freedom to distribute the code that what copyright does is going to get knocked down and the result will be what? Default copyright restrictions is what, which means tivoization wannabe users won't be able to use GPLv3 licensed software at ALL."

Really? You honestly can't see how a license that makes demands completely unrelated to software might get thrown out in court? The FSF demanding that companies release encryption keys for hardware simply because you installed GPLv3 software on it is ridiculous, and those lines in the license are probably invalid, they are overreaching and unnecessary.

I fully realize the license is invalid and you have no right to use software released under it if certain lines are found to be unenforceable. But you know what will happen? People are going to avoid GPLv3 software, these license provisions, even if no test case ever emerges, will probably never affect TiVo or anyone else, because GPLv2 versions of the software will be around forever.

Whatever, I've said what i wanted to say and you just don't like it. Tivo hasn't done anything wrong, they haven't violated the license, and they are never going to be affected by the FSFs political maneuvering.

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Fuck RMS, he is irrelevant to this discussion. No YOU are irrelevant. I figured this was your opinion to start with, glad I finally dragged it out of you.

Anyone who claims the license's primary author is irrelevant to understanding "the core goal of the" license is just a blathering idiot.

In the meantime, quite misstating "the core goal of the GPL," OK?

Re:He's right.. this is the future

[Alsee]

You make perfect sense there I just don't believe you.

I'm unclear on exact what it is you don't believe.

Note that I am not talking about Stallman's intent, or the FSF's four point principals of software freedom, or any of the other fuzzy-feely stuff I've seen others mention in this thread. I am saying I see a legal violation of the text of the GPLv2. I am saying that TiVo broke the law.

What point(s) do you not believe?
(1) The GPLv2 requires that if you distribute a binary executable, you must make source available?
(2) You must supply the entire source that you actually used to create that particular binary executable?
(3) That TiVo distributed a binary executable along with an associated crypto signature?
(4) That by TiVo's own intent and purposes, that executable would have been non-functional if they distributed it without that signature?
(5) That by TiVi's own intents and purposes, that signature is a functional element of that executable, intended-to and in-actuality modifying the functionality of that executable in its intended use?
(6) points 5 + 2, for TiVo itself that that signature is part of that executable so TiVo must supply the complete source they used during the compilation of that signed binary?
(7) TiVo used a crypto key and the naked executable as source files to derive that signature?
(8) Points 6+7, the "complete source" for that signed binary includes that that key?
(9) All of which leads to the result that failure to include that key is copyright infringement.

Note that this would not apply to people using similar signatures merely to say "this came from us", authenticating the origin of something. Someone doing that has no intent or purpose of the signature being a functional component of the executable. For their intents and purposes, the naked executable is indeed complete and functional. Their intent and purpose is that the signature is a completely separate and optional object, purely informative, and not affecting the executable in any way. Whereas TiVo intents and purposes are that the signature is an integral functional part of the intended executable.

Linus doesn't see any problem with what Tivo did

It doesn't matter whether I "have a problem" or not with what TiVo did.
It doesn't matter whether you "have a problem" or not with what TiVo did.
It doesn't matter whether Stallman "has a problem" or not with what TiVo did.
It doesn't matter whether Linus "has a problem" or not with what TiVo did.

The only thing that matters is whether TiVo violated the copyright license or not. The only thing that matters is whether a court would rule against TiVo. The only thing that matters is that any contributor to Linux would have the right to sue TiVo on this basis.

Not that it matters, but I doubt Linus has considered my above reasoning that (due to the way TiVo is using it) the key is a required component of the source. Linus doesn't care much about the philosophical stuff, but he does insist on following legal requirements. It's quite possible he'd reverse his position on TiVo based on the above.

-

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over

[IBBoard]

How is that GPLv2 causing a problem?

Fortunately, Nokia can do all that it wants with Linux, while being GPL2 and even GPL3-compatible

Apparently there are ways to separate things so that it is v3 compatible. No amount of "no DRM in GPL software" limitations is going to help if the people writing the DRM are able to sufficiently separate it such that the GPL license need not apply.

The misguidedness of DRM in the huge majority of situations is another matter, though.

Simple

[fahrbot-bot]

All of the Free Software goes on one side of that line, and all of the lock-down stuff on the other side.

Free stuff on the Linux partition, locked-down stuff on the Vista partition. :-)

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over

[mrsteveman1]

You should really spread the "signed binary" love around more, Apple is doing exactly that NOW on the iPhone, and lots of people think they want to do it on OS X as well at some point to stay ahead of any possible malware problems.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over

[mrsteveman1]

Exactly, if Nokia wants to build proprietary applications on top of even a GPLv3 software stack they can do so and comply with all the licenses involved.

In fact, they can even use LGPL system libraries and dynamically link them in to a DRM app of some kind.

Of course the FSF hates that, and actively encourages people to license libraries under GPL itself, because they like to move the goalpost for developers and users a lot.

It may end up that building proprietary apps on a GNU/Linux platform means completely avoiding even the standard system libraries, if your app isn't GPL you can't use GPL system libraries at that point.

Re:How Nokia and Linux Can Live Together

[Iceykitsune]

someone mod him -1, flamebait, troll PLEASE

linux users' translation

[v1]

All of the Free Software goes on one side of that line, and all of the lock-down stuff on the other side."

With the trash can being positioned just on the other side of the line...

who says we want to "live with" them?

[speedtux]

What does Nokia produce? Hardware, software, and services. There are dozens of other phone hardware manufacturers producing devices that are at least as nice as Nokia's. Their software breaks down into buggy and slow proprietary stuff, and some open source components that are so tightly integrated that they can't be improved. And their services are an attempt to squeeze extra revenue from phone buyers.

So, why should I as a user want to "live with" Nokia? They happen to be the best of the current crop of proprietary phone manufacturers, but that's a low standard indeed. I don't want to "live with" them, I want to replace them, as quickly as possible.

I have a Nokia phone right now, but give me Linux on an HTC phone any day over a Nokia.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over

[uuxququex]

It may end up that building proprietary apps on a GNU/Linux platform means completely avoiding even the standard system libraries, if your app isn't GPL you can't use GPL system libraries at that point.

And that would be the end of commercial development of software for GNU/Linux. Not saying it's good or bad, but that's what will happen.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over

[redxxx]

Drm is here to stay whether we like it or not. Their whole business model is to lock up and take ownership of other people's phones so they can charge for apps and ringtones. No, their business model is to sell phones. Unfortunately, most phones are sold through phone companies, and that is their business model.

It's like google censoring itself in china. They want the market share, so morality suddenly becomes relative.

Their non-phone products,N8*0s for instance, are a lot more friendly, because they don't have to satisfy the demands of the damn telcos.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over

[grumling]

Drm is here to stay whether we like it or not. Their whole business model is to lock up and take ownership of other people's phones so they can charge for apps and ringtones.

I'm not sure about that. Having used Verizion's standard LG software, and going to an S60 device has been night and day. I've had 0 problems setting up applications (non-signed apps just give me a warning), any song on the device can be set as a ringtone, etc. Heck, I can use the full bluetooth stack for OBEX push from my Linux laptop, and it just works.

Now, compare that to the Verizon experience: Download a ringtone? Sure, just open up "Get it Now." Install a Java app? Sure, it might be available as a BREW application, just open up "Get it Now." Download your pictures if you don't have a removable memory card? Sure, just e-mail it to yourself (at $0.25 each, re-compressed). Now, I'm comparing apples to oranges to some extent, since I'm comparing a standard phone to a smartphone, but even NOK's unlocked basic phone have a lot of possibilities available. If you want to see a locked environment, just visit your friendly Verizon store.

I did have to pay a premium for that freedom (full price for an unlocked phone), but not having to deal with some of the frustrations I used to deal with made it worth it. The phone companies are re-learning the lesson that the courts forced them to learn in the early 80s: if you let end-users use whatever they want on the network you'll get a lot more useage and more money for less effort. Right now they get a lot of incremental revenue from ring tones and other stuff. Eventually, the ring tone providers (record companies) will get stingy and want higher percentages, leading to inflation and people will just stop paying for them (and the boomer kids will get older and not bother anymore).

Specifically speaking to Nokia, I like most of what they are doing, thinking outside the box when it comes to some of their services. I doubt that the folks at AT&T would even come up with the Sports Tracker, for example. But even if they did, I'm fairly certain they would charge some crazy amount for it (I MIGHT pay an extra $0.50/month for it, but they'd want to charge $5.00 or more), make it incompatible with just about everything else on the planet, and make the UI so bad that it would be unworkable. And they aren't stopping anyone from writing their own Sports Tracker application. They just happen to have one available.

From the 10,000ft perspective, I think Nokia is not sure what to do. They have a lot of good products, want to see the world migrate to smartphones, but don't know how to do it. Their bread and butter is in cheap disposable phones that will stand up to harsh treatment. They see the iPhone and see that faster processors and better UIs are the way to go (although the basic S60 interface is just fine with me), but they are behind in this regard (not trying to sound like an Apple fanboy, just stating a fact). The N800 is a device that they had all set up to do a nice business as a webpad, but now the whole notion of a webpad is morphing into the UMPCs on the high end, and the eee-style super cheaps. I also don't think they counted on Apple doing well, and Jobs is stealing all their good ideas.

I think long term Nokia needs Linux to move ahead. S60 is nice, but isn't going anywhere. Android running on Nokia hardware would be fantastic. So would a real Debian based build (Ubuntu mobile?) with real support (Please fix the Gmail IMAP bug on my N800! It's been months). Nokia is already using it in a somewhat successful device (Internet Tablets), they've bought several open source companies, and it fits in well with their traditional model (they build hardware and license software with Symbian).

When the GPL is an issue, why not use BSD?

[siDDis]

What's wrong with building embedded devices based on BSD, is the Linux kernel really that superior when it comes cell phones?

Re:When the GPL is an issue, why not use BSD?

[FishWithAHammer]

Linux is buzzwordy, mostly.

Re:When the GPL is an issue, why not use BSD?

[ChunderDownunder]

'Buzzwordy' maybe. But does it run on toasters? :)

Consumer signed binaries date back two decades

[tepples]

Apple is doing exactly that NOW on the iPhone Atari beat Apple to the punch in 1984 with the lockout of the Atari 7800 game console.

Fuck DRM, we dont' need Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck DRM. They can go shove it up where the sun don't shine.

We don't need Nokia.
If they want to play ball with us, then thats fine. But if try to bring DRM into the game, we wont play.

Don't try to keep your business model alive...

[A beautiful mind]

...with DRM. Nokia is just another company in the long line of companies that have to learn this or die.

How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine...

[clang_jangle]

(1) Open the cell networks

(2)Sell flat-rate or simple tiered access to the network

(3)Sell a range of solutions, from bare bones "modems" to full-fledged gadgety smartphones

(4)Stop trying to tell us what software and hardware we're allowed to fucking use on that network

(5)Profit!!!

It could all be so simple, were the bastards not so greedy . There are plenty of idiots who would still happily buy pink Razrs and crappy ring tones...

GPLv4 needed I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

If this shit pulls a tivo and violates the spirit of the v2 and v3 licenses without perhaps violating the letter, we need to plug the holes. I wonder if the wording of perhaps some larger modus operandi should be changed to avoid these arms races with the unethical corporate types...

There's a quote that goes something like 'all it takes for the bad people to win is the good guys to do nothing'. It's a sad world out there.

Re:GPLv4 needed I guess

[Sloppy]

If this shit pulls a tivo and violates the spirit of the v2 and v3 licenses without perhaps violating the letter, we need to plug the holes.

You can't. The strategy that Perens outlines in his blog entry, is for Nokia to engineer their system such that their user-hostile is unambiguously not a derivative work of the GPLed code. If it's not a derivative work, then the GPL won't apply to the situation, so there's no way to insert a term into GPL that prohibits Nokia's nastiness.

If there were any possible way for the GPL to prohibit this situation, trust me: you would be living in Hell. The same trick the GPL would use, would be used against you so many times that it would make your head spin.

Nokia to Open Source Hackers

[Requiem18th]

How can I have your cake and eat it too?

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over

[jmorris42]

> Drm is here to stay whether we like it or not.

I used to fear that would be true, and many would pronounce it as flatly as you just did only a year or two ago. But you are now the exception.

DRM is pretty much dead on music these days. DVD has been totally cracked for years now and the sky hasn't fallen, DVD sales are still good. The defunct HD-DVD was already cracked and BD's first line of defense has already fallen. It is only a matter of time before the advanced crypto falls. And it won't kill HD content sales when it happens. Eventually the fear, uncertainty and doubt in Hollywood will meet reality.

The cell phone industry is going to take a bit longer, especially with the government mixed up in things. But I'm betting DRM gets pushed back to the SIM within a decade. You can't really open up that lowest layer of the stack without rethinking the entire worldwide phone network so that will probably be with us a bit longer.

> Future versions of windows will be locked to signed drm executables
> as well and its the wave of the future.

Had Microsoft been able to force TCPA into Vista they probably would indeed been able to put us all into an X-Box Hell forever. But their window of opportunity has probably closed forever. By the time Windows 7 ships they aren't likely to have a monopoly anymore. Dominant, yes. Monopoly that can dictate who can and cannot sell software for Windows and demand a 'taste' of every sale X-Box style, no. Apple and ASUS have pretty much settled that question.

Nokia makes and sells hundreds of millions

[Colin Smith]

Every year... They are basically doing what the OLPC people would love to do in their wettest dreams.

These guys can be rendered redundant by simple pieces of hardware placed into a critical mass of hands. How many handsets do you make and sell?

You see, putting a "simple piece of hardware" into a critical mass of hands is not the same as copying a piece of software. It is a linear process, you need an infrastructure which can produce and distribute that critical mass of handsets and that requires a huge investment.

Getting Linux onto Nokia phones is a huge leap forward, it is a step past the desktop which is now largely irrelevant. As long as they stick to the GPL (and they will, their lawyers and developers will be perfectly aware of the issues) what they actually do with it is up to them. That is almost certainly going to include DRM, locked down hardware and patented software because that is what their customers (the mobile networks) demand of them.

But you know what? That phone is still a Linux box.

I say good luck to them.

Re:Nokia makes and sells hundreds of millions

[zblack_eagle]

Handsets probably require a large investment for set up costs, but besides some outsourced components the variable costs would be cheap, yes. But the one thing I really don't get is how you're confusing the cell phone manufacturers with the cell phone service companies. Unless Nokia is a service provider somewhere, they didn't purchase any broadcast monopoly, though they might have had to pay to have their device certified to use the spectrum. But that's different.

With cell phones we have the same situation we have with television. With television the advertiser is the customer and the captive audience is the product. With cell phones in the instance of fixed term contracts, the service providers are the actual customer to the manufacturer. The manufacturers would be competing for what the service providers wanted, which would have been to lock down phones to keep consumers in contracts and maybe to force additional revenue streams by the arbitrary crippling of handset features. If the manufacturer didn't do that, the service provider would just have gone with a different manufacturer.

Re:Nokia makes and sells hundreds of millions

[ReedYoung]

Handsets probably require a large investment for set up costs, but besides some outsourced components the variable costs would be cheap, yes. But the one thing I really don't get is how you're confusing the cell phone manufacturers with the cell phone service companies. Unless Nokia is a service provider somewhere, they didn't purchase any broadcast monopoly, though they might have had to pay to have their device certified to use the spectrum. But that's different. Official partnerships: Sign up with Carrier X, get free or discounted hardware Brand Y, Model Z. A few manufacturers have that established relationship with the few service providers who in turn are able to dominate their markets through coercive monopoly, so to a free market advocate the discount that hardware manufacturers deliver to service providers is a euphemism for their share of the bribe to Congress to maintain that coercive monopoly in statute.

Re:Nokia makes and sells hundreds of millions

[Raenex]

The handsets don't require a huge investment. They're cheap pieces of plastic. Can I see your business plan then with an estimated cost? Also, who do you have in mind who is going to fund this? Why would people buy it without the network in place to make it useful, when there is already a functional, extensive network in place?

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over

[SanityInAnarchy]

No amount of "no DRM in GPL software" limitations is going to help if the people writing the DRM are able to sufficiently separate it such that the GPL license need not apply. If they are able to sufficiently separate it that the GPLv3 software isn't affected, then there's really no problem. GPLv3 isn't about preventing DRM, it's about preventing the use of DRM to close GPL software -- among other loopholes.

The classic example is Tivoisation. Tivo did release all the source for the GPL software they used. But they didn't provide any way of running a different version on your Tivo -- in fact, they went out of their way to prevent that, by signing the binaries.

A surprising example where the GPLv3 can happily coexist with DRM is the Playstation 3. You can install any Linux distro that will compile for it, and you can custom-compile everything. The catch is that it all runs inside a hypervisor (virtual machine), which prevents access to certain hardware. But since you are free to hack up the GPLv3 stuff, recompile it, and run it in exactly the same context as the original, it is GPLv3-compatible.

The misguidedness of DRM in the huge majority of situations is another matter, though. Yes, it is. And it's important that we keep it a separate issue than GPLv3.

Slightly OT

[Vexorian]

All this talk about openness vs. Nokia, brings bad memories to me. Has anyone tried to use a Nokia(or sony) provided USB cable to transfer data from a PC to a non-memory-expansible cell phone? "Hellish nightmare" is the least I can call it, really, where the cell phone makers trying hard to make our lives as hard as heck?

Re:How Nokia and Linux Can Live Together

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Linux really did kill a dog.

Nokia

[whitespiral]

Nokia can try "their way" all they want. But one day another phone maker will understand and apply the open source way to their products, and then they will kick Nokia's ass big time. It's their choice.

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine

[lazyforker]

(4)Stop trying to tell us what software and hardware we're allowed to fucking use on that network
I think most sysadmins/network engineers would agree that the network owners are totally within their rights to limit/approve/control/monitor the h/w and s/w in use on their networks. The network owners are trying to provide the most stable environment for the largest number of paying customers.
I don't work for a telco but I do like to have a very reliable cell network (especially since I have no landline, voip etc).

Bright line?!?!?

[kipman725]

How about the bright line of the DRM crap where you have controll and the free software where I have control. OK? propritry software has no place on an open system. My soultion in this particuar battle is to only use non-free software absolutly needed and replace as soon as freesoftware is usable.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over

[IBBoard]

If they are able to sufficiently separate it that the GPLv3 software isn't affected, then there's really no problem. GPLv3 isn't about preventing DRM, it's about preventing the use of DRM to close GPL software -- among other loopholes.

My point was that the GP was trying to basically say the opposite - that GPLv3 would prevent a DRM situation that GPLv2 wouldn't. Given that Nokia are specifically separating things (in a similar way to the PS3, probably, from a legal stand-point at the least) then the GP's comment doesn't have any basis in anything.

I can see the aim of the DRM line in GPLv3, but I'm not sure about using it as it seems to be putting a 'political' bias on a technical license.

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

That argument works for a network which is only for your machines and your employees. It doesn't work for an ISP.

What is a derivative work?

[saltydog56]

Am I the only one that believes that the FSF and others benefit from the gray area surrounding the question âoewhat is a derivative workâ and would be disappointed if the courts came up with a hard and firm definition of what constitutes a derivative work?

The term derivative work seems to have a lot of "creep" in it, and seems to serve the goals of RMS and the FSF very well.

Re:What is a derivative work?

[Bruce Perens]

FSF is trying to get the most possible out of a unilateral-permission-based license rather than a contract-based one. If courts tightened up the definition of a derivative work, FSF might be forced to go to a contract-based license. Certainly that would let them control what is done with the software more than they do now. They would not have to concern themselves about the boundaries of derivative works. And yet they have refrained from taking that step so far, because they don't want to restrict you from doing anything that you would otherwise have the right to do. They feel that would reduce your freedom.

Bruce

Re:What is a derivative work?

[Sloppy]

No, you're not the only person who thinks that. Whenever I hear people quoting Linus (one way) or the GPL's text (another way) as somehow an authority on the subject, I just shake my head. Developers and licenses don't (and can't) define derivative works; the law does. They do influence people's opinions on the matter, though.

Personally, it blows my mind that anyone could think a driver is a derivative work of a kernel. But I could be all wrong, since it's never gotten to court AFAIK.

DRM and Freedom don't mix.

[Odder]

If Nokia allows me to remove the parts of their device that do SIM locking and DRM, they might as well not bother with DRM. Code that prevents me from removing such things violates GPL3 and Nokia will not be able to distribute any GPL3 code on a device like that. They won't even try if they believe what they tell others about respecting "intellectual property". A system that won't work if it's modified by the user is not a free system.

Nokia is not the real villain. US Cell phone companies may not allow free software devices to access their networks now or ever. This is probably what Nokia spokesmen think is the reality developers have to get used to. I'd rather get used to spectrum freedom and forget about US cell phone companies.

Re:DRM and Freedom don't mix.

[fatphil]

You completely misunderstand GPL3. They can distribute any GPL3 programs they like on their device as long as they honour the GPL3. GPL3 does not say "you must not ship this on a device which also contains non-GPL programs".

Re:DRM and Freedom don't mix.

[lsatenstein]

What Nokia is worried about is that the logic that they employ will be open to improvement, to patent by a third party, and that they will have to PAY, PAY, and PAY. The open source community will eventually architect open hardware integration, and I would say that by 2013, (5yrs), we will see open hardware too. Leslie

Re:DRM and Freedom don't mix.

[Anonymous Coward]

US Cell phone companies may not allow free software devices to access their networks now or ever.

Not entirely true. US cell phone companies that use GSM (AT&T, T-mobile) don't prevent you from using any device you want. As long as it supports GSM on 850 MHZ or 1900 MHz it will work just fine.

And frankly, the US market isn't that big when it comes to cell phones. The rest of the world is much bigger. It isn't the US market that prevents Nokia from supporting linux.

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine

[Bruce Perens]

We do have this great big contrary example of the Internet. It interoperates really well where the standards are followed. The stability problems that exist are mostly due to malware, and exist on closed networks too, and can be managed, although Microsoft isn't a good example of how to manage them.

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine

[IamTheRealMike]

Well, a giant amount of traffic on the backbone is spam, viruses, and illegal copying, so I can't really blame the telcos for not wanting their networks to turn into that ...

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine

[IamTheRealMike]

You can already buy phones that don't use DRM or sim locking. You just have to pay the full manufacturing cost. As it turns out a lot of people like to get the handsets subsidised and deal with the DRM. I guess I don't see the issue here.

A good article as usual

[symbolset]

Although I agree with you about the bright lines, I doubt Nokia is going to want to play well with the open source folks.

For all of me they could put their magic phone bits on one corner of the board and connect it with some interface -- say ppoe over usb or ethernet or whatever. They can move the phone into the computer. That way my internet-everywhere device could use it like what it is -- a wireless modem.

I think what they want though is to move the computer into the phone. They want to build all of their DRM into the computer bits on the other side of your bright line so the providers can continue to make billions of dollars a year on ringtones and phone applications. That's a scheme I can't get behind and I won't be buying one of those. I'd rather just keep using the external cellular phone with USB for a remote broadband connection and remain able to install whatever software I want on the computer side of the USB cable.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over

[AI0867]

Google does the same thing in france and germany to comply with local laws, albeit on a smaller scale.
It also delisted sites due to scientology DMCA complaints in order to comply with laws of the USA.

Though these are on a smaller scale, censorship exists in the "free world" as well.

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine

[Joutsa]

Also: Most of the software running telephone networks is written to work in environment where everyone else adheres to standards. This is possible because everything is audited and approved before use in live networks. In Internet this attitude would lead (and has led) to giant security holes.

Now if phones were left loose to mess with base stations, they could probably crash not only network cells but entire networks.

Absolutely correct, but one caveat...

[argent]

There is one caveat that you have to watch out for, if you run Linux hosted on another kernel. The FSF has taken the position that interfaces supported by a hosted implementation of an operating system are not native operating system interfaces... at least when the hosted implementation of the OS is "thin" enough: at least one UNIX-on-Windows implementation has had to avoid running GCC under their software and instead use a DOS/Windows port of GCC alongside their UNIX implementation. Running Linux in a VM, even an enhanced VM with specific APIs that Linux can call, would seem to be safe, but you would need to be doubly careful in a shallower kernel-on-kernel implementation.

The most straightforward "bright line" would still be a dual-CPU approach. This has apparently been used by other smartphone manufacturers to allow unrestricted application development alongside the cellular network. This approach would also be useful in personal computers. If the operating system, for example, is only used to deliver encrypted media to an audiovisual card with its own DRM firmware and codecs running on its own processor, then it doesn't matter whether the OS is Windows Vista, Linux, or OS X... and as an added bonus it would make all that encryption overhead Microsoft added to the Vista kernel look even more wasteful and foolish.

DRM issue

[Ikyuao]

If Linux developer folks don't want DRM be incorporated into something in a software or in Linux kernel core software then Linux developers will walk away from this ridiculous deal talk. I prefer not to have a ridiculous DRM things into something of software.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over

[Yfrwlf]

Nice comment. It will just take time, but it all comes down to the fact that consumers don't want to be screwed over, it's that simple. As consumers start realizing they are getting screwed over (some of them are pretty slow in the head), they will start migrating to devices which let them do more, more freely.

Technology is supposed to get better and better as time goes on. I expected robots to be doing most of the work now days, but that didn't happen. The point is, things should get cheaper, and the features list should increase. Paying $0.50 for a ring tone isn't on the features list. Competition, do your thing please. (Takes long enough, would be really nice if the government would have stepped in and saved consumers billions of dollars like the EU did for them.)

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine

[hany]

Well, a giant amount of traffic on the backbone is spam, viruses, and illegal copying, so I can't really blame the telcos for not wanting their networks to turn into that ...

Then they should push users to adopt something (almost anything) else than Microsoft Windows.

Oh, sorry, cheap shot. :)

But really. The solution is simple (even though maybe painful to some): People should bear the consequences of their decisions.

So, if user chooses to use Windows (or Linux, Mac or whatever), is not able to keep it secure and in shape and thus become part of a botnet propagating large quantities of SPAM and malware, he should at least see his connection bill to go up. Or we can turn that around and give discounts to users who are able to not be part of botnet.

Or, if a backbone (or any other network) operator choose not to go after his users when they generate a lot of junk on the network, well, he has to bear the consequences and either accept that he's providing crappy service on overloaded network or invest much more money to handle the overhead.

I think that very clean solution is for network providers to pass the costs to users, but on individual basis, not by dividing the whole costs evently, so as top properly distribute the "consequences": "We do not care what are you using the bandwidth for (nor do we know or able to tell - we're providing "neutral network", we're not snooping, filtering, ... - just simply measuring the throughoutput). But you use 10% of our total bandwidth so here's the invoice for 10% of the costs.".

Network Operators != Handset Manufacturers

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like your big beef is with the Net Ops.

(1) Open the cell networks I don't fully understand what you mean by this but here in the UK there are quite a few virtual network operators that utilise the infrastructure of others. Even some supermarkets are now network operators.

(2)Sell flat-rate or simple tiered access to the network Find a niche, get a business plan together, do the above.

(3)Sell a range of solutions, from bare bones "modems" to full-fledged gadgety smartphones Ditto.

(4)Stop trying to tell us what software and hardware we're allowed to fucking use on that network The only limitations you have is the Type Approval of the devices running on the network. If you want to run the open market versions of handsets (with all the features enabled, etc), or even commission customised versions from the handset manufacturers, then you can.
Most network operators request sim locks simply to
reduce the risk losing too much money on subsidising handsets. They also like having things customised so that the handset 'just works' on the network without having to mess about with manually configuring settings, using their preferred terminology, skins, ringtones, app packs, etc.

(5)Profit!!! If your business plan is sound and well executed then it's a possibility you might make some money out of it.

It could all be so simple, were the bastards not so greedy . There are plenty of idiots who would still happily buy pink Razrs and crappy ring tones...

Re:Network Operators != Handset Manufacturers

[clang_jangle]

It sounds like your big beef is with the Net Ops.

Yes, I fired that one off while distracted and doing several other things -- frankly, I'm surprised I wasn't modded off-topic. Not that I mind of course. :)

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine

[Zantetsuken]

except its closer to being a sys admin where your company can only purchase mediocre equipment that is overpriced and *just* satisfies the minimum requirements through a specific list of middleman ordering companies...

Who moved the goalposts?

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM wasn't POSSIBLE when GPL2 was written.

Technology moved the goalposts.

And the original use of GPL was to stop the printer being locked away from use because the propriator didn't want to do the work. If DRM had been possible a la Tivo, then seeing the code would not make that printer work.

The changes are EXACTLY what the GPL requires and always has. No goalpost changing there.