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.

14 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. The Bright Line by camperdave · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:The Bright Line by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:The Bright Line by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

    3. Re:The Bright Line by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    4. Re:The Bright Line by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:The Bright Line by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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.

    6. Re:The Bright Line by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.
      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  2. What's IMHO the problem here... by Enleth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    --
    This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
    1. Re:What's IMHO the problem here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > 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.

  3. Re:wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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*.

  4. Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over by grumling · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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).

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  5. Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > 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.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  6. Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Nokia makes and sells hundreds of millions by zblack_eagle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.