Slashdot Mirror
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.
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
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.
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
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.
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
...with DRM. Nokia is just another company in the long line of companies that have to learn this or die.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
(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...
Caveat Utilitor
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.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
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.
Deleted
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.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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).
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
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
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
Bruce Perens.
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.
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...
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.
Bruce Perens.