Slashdot Mirror
FSF Uses Android FUD To Push GPLv3
jfruhlinger writes "We've already seen claims from Edward Naughton and Florian Mueller that most Android distributors are in violation of the GPL — claims that the open source community has, for the most part, rejected. Therefore it's disheartening to see that the FSF is using this line of reasoning to push the GPL v3 over the supposedly more troublesome GPL v2. The FSF's press release on the subject emphasizes 'worries' without bringing up a specific concrete case of infringement — a classic FUD technique."
No, it just means that FSF can see past what most slashdotters can't, regarding Google and Android.
But do mod me down, me and FSF dared to question Google on Slashdot.
The difference is that Microsoft's agenda serves only themselves, while the FSF's agenda serves humanity as a whole.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If Android were GPLv3 licensed we wouldn't have a problem with companies locking down their bootloaders. We could use the energy we currently put into hacking root access on our own phones into improving the platform.
I obviously agree with the FSF.
lol. FSF site is Slashdotted. Behold the power of FOSS!
The only people helping FOSS more than Microsoft is the BSA (yes I know MS is a member).
Here's the press release in question from Google cache Aug. 18th
Android GPLv2 termination worries: one more reason to upgrade to GPLv3
by Brett Smith — last modified August 18, 2011 18:48
Distributors lose their rights when they violate GPLv2, but the Free Software Foundation is more forgiving in its license enforcement to encourage continued participation in the free software community. GPLv3 has improved termination provisions to codify this approach, giving developers one more reason to upgrade.
Thanks to Android's commercial success, the kernel Linux, which is released under the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2, is being distributed more than ever before. Whenever someone distributes GPL-covered software, they must follow a few conditions set forth in the license. These conditions try to give anyone who receives the software both the legal permission and the practical tools necessary to change and share the software themselves if they wish.
Not all of the companies that distribute Android heed these conditions. We've witnessed an uptick in GPL violation reports—some convincing, others incomplete or misinformed—against these vendors. We generally can't pursue these violations directly, because only copyright holders can enforce free software licenses in most countries, and few Android devices use FSF-copyrighted code. However, people still seek out our opinions about the relevant parts of the GPL, and that discussion has recently turned to GPLv2's termination provisions. Section 4 of the license says, “You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.”
When we enforce the license of FSF-copyrighted software, we give violators back the rights they had after they come into compliance. In our experience, developers of Linux are happy to do the same. Unfortunately, even if we assume they all would restore these rights, it would be extremely difficult to have them all formally do so; there are simply too many copyright holders involved, some of whom haven't worked on the project in years or even decades.
When we wrote GPLv2 in 1991, we didn't imagine that a free software project might have hundreds of copyright holders, making it so difficult to get a violator's rights restored. We want it to be easy for a former violator to know that they're still allowed to change and share the software; if they stop distribution because of legal uncertainty, fewer people will have free software in the long run. Hence, we created new termination provisions for GPLv3. These terms offer violators a simple method to earn back the rights they had. Parties who violate the license have their rights restored provisionally as soon as they come back into compliance, and permanently if no copyright holders terminate those rights within sixty days of the last violation. Furthermore, first-time violators will have their rights restored permanently if they come into compliance within thirty days of receiving such notice.
GPLv3's approach has several advantages over GPLv2's. By having the license grant forgiveness by default, instead of terminating rights permanently, it better matches our community's expectations and normal compliance strategy. It will be easier for violators to get their rights restored by any copyright holders who do terminate rights, because the notice will establish a clear way for the violator to get in touch. Finally, GPLv3's termination provisions don't sacrifice anything we need: the license's conditions still do their best to protect software freedom, and copyright holders will still be able to legally enforce the license against parties that don't comply.
This is just one of many reasons why GPLv3 is better than GPLv2. This change has already given some companies the reassuring nudge they needed to start distributing GPL-
Yeah, it's FUD but when you really consider it as FUD, who exactly is it targeting? I think, if I read this correctly, this is supposed to be an attempt at scaring device manufacturers away from using Android. But the core of the argument appears to be that if you distribute Android and you do not follow the GPLv2 then you will lose all your rights (as with most licenses). Once you've lost all your rights, according to the GPLv2, you have to go around to the original copyright owners and get them to okay that you can again have a GPLv2 license. Which would be nigh impossible with Linux. Okay so that seems logical. They then state that you can instantly regain your rights by simply falling in line with compliance when the source code is GPLv3 licensed. Okay, so that also sounds logical.
We've already seen claims from Edward Naughton and Florian Mueller that most Android distributors are in violation of the GPL - claims that the open source community has, for the most part, rejected.
I don't know how someone can speak for that demographic. I followed the link to find out who this spokesperson is and was brought to this in the linked article on that Slashdot article:
Textbook FUD.
And this is why people avoid GPL code. Whether Mueller is right or wrong (and he's pretty much always wrong) there is so much FUD spread over potential GPL violations all over the place that most corporations just don't want to even get within miles of the GPL for fear that some loser like Florian will try to peg crap on them.
A Slashdot Anonymous Coward
So the open source community is represented by an anonymous coward here on Slashdot?
Have I ever bought a $10 piece of trash from China and found out that I could really use the source in order to make it work with my computer? Yes. Could I foresee some BS tablet maker producing a piece of trash tablet, hacking Android and releasing it sans source code only to have consumers wonder how in the hell Android is running on that device? Definitely. I wouldn't put that past anybody given there's supposedly one GPL violation a day and the fact of the matter is that licenses don't seem to mean jack shit in China (and that's their right as a sovereign nation).
So the allegations here are that Edward Naughton and Florian Mueller (neither of whom I am defending, by the way) have spread FUD to strong arm people into migrating to GPLv3 so that device makers won't fear the repercussion of violating GPLv2 and then having to do impossible legwork to get back in good standing and regain a license?
Regardless of how effective that is (I'm not a handset manufacturer nor do I know any straying from Android because of this) that is some pretty crazy thin ridiculous sorry FUD if I may say so myself. I worked for a Fortune 500 company for seven years and all I ever saw was a slow gradual movement toward GPL code until I think the only licenses we had were unfortunate contractual agreements from the past. Oh, and Windows. No one really cowered in fear and ran screaming when presented with the above "FUD" as the Anonymous Coward quote seems to imply.
I don't get it, we pick apart any huge company's license here on Slashdot in the name of protecting the consumer but when someone does it to the GPL and finds some hilariously minute case -- then it's FUD?
The FSF's press release on the subject emphasizes 'worries' without bringing up a specific concrete case of infringement — a classic FUD technique.
I think it's worth pointing out that in order for this to be "proven" in a court of law, I think that would mean a GPLv2 license holder would have to sue a company that used Android,
My work here is dung.
Before the FSF site went down temporarily, I read the original news article, (Android GPLv2 termination worries: one more reason to upgrade to GPLv3 and sure enough, the last line currently says "Companies that sell products that use Android can help out by encouraging the developers of Linux to make the switch to GPLv3."
Linux is licensed solely under GPLv2, not "GPLv2 or later", so switching is not a question of Linus deciding to change (which he wouldn't agree to anyway) - all the other contributors would have to agree as well.
I emailed Brett Smith (copy in my journal) to point this out, as well as point out that the GPLv2 allows for distribution as long as you are CURRENTLY in compliance. There is no "you lose your rights forever" clause in the GPLv2 license.
Lesson: Never assign your code to someone who says "trust me." Not even the FSF. And be wary of clauses that allow them to change the license at will to a future version that may not be to your liking, or that they may interpret to say something it doesn't say.
A lot of very good free programs are now kept out of the hands of people because of GPL v3
Nonsense. The only reason not to use GPLv3 software is if you intend to deprive your users of their fundamental software freedoms. If that's your choice, we're not losing out on anything when we prohibit you from using GPLv3 software.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Distributing, I mean. The GPL prohibits no one, under any circumstances, from using any software. Even if you refuse to accept the GPL, you may use GPL(any version) software.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm curious about this claim. No one is forced to use GPLv3, so how does this follow? Can you clarify what you mean, and any evidence you can bring to bear on this point? After all, Linux itself is GPLv2, and most distros have software from a number of open source licenses.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The GPLv2 may not be the right license for Android, but GPLv3 isn't either. There's no way cell phone manufacturers would distribute patent licenses with their code, especially with all the patent lawsuits happening now. Ignoring a one critical aspects of the use case for another makes this useless.
"Sometimes it's hard to tell the dancer from the dance." --Corwin Of Amber in CoC
FUD is "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt," right?
What's the difference between Uncertainty and Doubt?
I doubt there is a major difference within this context. Or at least I'm uncertain. Hm.
The basic problem the FSF has is a growing irrelevance.
The world is leaving open source behind and moving towards smartphones, tablets, etc. that all run closed, or semi-closed software on closed hardware.
It is partially due to binary only drivers for some hardware, but also because the open source world simply hasn't moved with the times and come up with a valid open source replacement for iOS, Android, or any of the other variously used choices. Instead we see creations like Gnome 3, which is so badly designed it doesn't work for any platform, or Unity which is aimed at netbooks which is a declining market, or KDE who are doomed by the simple fact that the newer developers are targeting/interested in the hot stuff - the smartphones and tablets that open source has ignored.
Admittedly open source is in good company, given that RIM and Microsoft were both also very late to this party, but they at least have a focus and money to try and solve the issue.
The GPL does however prevent people from distributing derivative works without the source and then there is the matter of the anti-tivoization language in the GPL v3.
Some might consider the ability to link in GPL code in otherwise non-GPL code and vice versa to be a fundamental freedom that open source is supposed to provide.
The GPL is arguably more restrictive than other OSS licenses. The important part is the -reasoning- and -intent- of the restrictions. They are intended to secure against the removal of your rights.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
According to TFA, the FSF gets what they consider credible reports of violations and false or misguided claims of violations. That suggests that they do look into the claims. The author then complains that the FSF won't talk about specific claims. The problem with that is the FSF doesn't normally run around talking in public about violations - they negotiate with the violators to get them to comply. Part of negotiation is not to piss off the other party by airing their dirty laundry. It does not surprise me at all that the FSF isn't giving some blogger a story.
Calling this article FUD is clearly unfair. It is a great writeup of the advantages given both to holders and users of GPLv3. Such as this paragraph:
When we wrote GPLv2 in 1991, we didn't imagine that a free software project might have hundreds of copyright holders, making it so difficult to get a violator's rights restored. We want it to be easy for a former violator to know that they're still allowed to change and share the software; if they stop distribution because of legal uncertainty, fewer people will have free software in the long run. Hence, we created new termination provisions for GPLv3. These terms offer violators a simple method to earn back the rights they had. Parties who violate the license have their rights restored provisionally as soon as they come back into compliance, and permanently if no copyright holders terminate those rights within sixty days of the last violation. Furthermore, first-time violators will have their rights restored permanently if they come into compliance within thirty days of receiving such notice.
Someone should go into their phone provider and ask for a copy of the GPL'd portions of their phones source and see how far that gets them - and then be led into this discussion with an appropriate perspective on Android and the GPL. Also: another article on Linux and Android relevant to this discussion.
The article does mention --- in passing --- that there has been an "uptick" in reported GPL violations made against Android vendors, though it goes ahead to note that many of those alleged violations are doubtful. The article is not about that fact, but about the fact that these vendors are confronted with some legal uncertainties as to their statuses with respect to the GPL after their rights have been voided and then subsequently restored. The comparison of GPL3 to GPL2 in the article is to point out that GPL3 has some provisions that make it easier for the vendors to understand their statuses under these conditions.
I know nothing about the truth or falsity of any of these points, but I do know that there is no FUD being dished out except in the summary here on Slashdot.
Exactly, this is why I support the GPLv3 over the GPLv2. The only things the GPLv2 allows that the GPLv3 doesn't are tivoization and patent timebombs. If a company needs one of those things to offer an open source product, well fuck 'em, we don't need their shit (and yes that goes for the prominent tivoized mobile OS. Better, more open OSes were marginalized due to Android's success, and now Android is practically closed, so in the long run I'd say we would have been better off without it. MeeGo or WebOS could have taken its place).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If the FSF really wants to make a difference they should quit their usual politik and whining and throw their weight behind a viable alternative smart phone OS. Or build one. Maybe MeeGo or something. Do something equivalent to CyanogenMod which flashes phones with the new phone stack and demonstrate this brave new world. Perhaps it would be popular enough that even a phone manufacturer picks it up and uses it for real.
That or the FSF can whine from the sidelines wondering why people choose a working, functional smart phone OS rather than the non existent one in their heads.
Lemme get this straight, you want to allow tivoization? If so just be honest and use the BSD license, that's practically what tivoization turns the GPLv2 into anyways.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
They're helping things, just perhaps not in they way they wanted. Case in point: gcc is a piece of shit (yes, you can polish a turd), but it's good enough. The GPL3 nonsense was the final straw for Apple, so they redirected their resources towards llvm, clang, and libcxx -- superior software under a truly free license.
Everyone benefits -- a better compiler for users and the FSF can just pull a switch-a-roo like they did with eggs and paste their GPL headers on the clang/llvm source code.
Android can't be GPL v3 licensed without relicensing the kernel
Android consists of more than the GPLv2-licensed Linux kernel. It also has userland processes and libraries that could have used GPLv3 family licenses.
That's a critical distinction, and the corollary to that distinction is that most companies won't touch GPLv3 software with a ten meter pole, which means that it never gets included in commercial OS distributions and can't be sold/given away in many popular online stores. That, in turn, is a great reason not to use GPLv3 software.
First rule of software: if it's hard to obtain and/or hard to install, it might as well not exist, as it will be forever relegated to niche markets.
As a case in point, we're currently watching Apple, NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD move towards LLVM/Clang. Assuming this transition continues unabated, within a few years, GCC will basically be a footnote outside of hardcore Free Software circles.
It's worth noting that none of the people or companies involved in that transition are doing it because they want to take away customers' rights. They're doing it because they have a different definition of "freedom" than GPL proponents. Freedom to take open source software and make it closed source is a freedom that the GPL takes away. Thus, the GPL is less free than BSD licenses. Sure, you can try to justify that fact away by saying that it prevents other people from taking away your freedom, but does it really?
If I took GCC and made it closed source today (assuming I were allowed to do so), existing GCC users would continue to have access to previous versions of GCC. They could continue to innovate and improve the compiler. They just wouldn't be entitled to the improvements that I made for my customers. Further, if I developed a compiler from scratch, my customers would have exactly the same rights to the compiler source as they would if I were allowed to take GCC closed source. Therefore, no one's freedom is actually taken away by taking an open source project and making it closed source. The only difference is that in one case, the GCC developers feel like I've taken advantage of their generosity and used it for personal gain, whereas in the other case, they don't.
Really, what it comes down to is entitlement. Free Software proponents feel that the community is entitled to free fixes from anyone who redistributes code that they gave away, whereas the Open Source community does not. The Free Software proponents (at least the ones who haven't been fooled by false claims that it protects "freedoms") see these post-backs as essentially a form of payment in exchange for their work. By continuing to make that payment, companies are allowed to benefit from the community's previous work on the project. In effect, Free Software developers use code post-backs as a form of currency, whereas traditional Open Source software developers just plain give away their code.
What's fascinating is that when you look at the history of software, a pattern emerges: companies value the right to take software closed-source even if they have no real intention of availing themselves of that right. GPL essentially deprives them of flexibility. The result is that given two otherwise equal choices, one of which is licensed under a GPL license and one of which is licensed under a BSD license, companies will invariably choose the latter. It's possibly an irrational reaction, but it's a consistent reaction.
The result of this, of course, is that companies distance themselves from GPLed software, making it harder and harder to obtain, relegating it to obscurity. By contrast, Open Source software, while not as ideologically pure in the eyes of GPL proponents, flourishes and, unsurprisingly, remains open more often than not.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
So you believe the ends justify the means?
Or at least a certain subset thereof
The GPL licenses support a certain set of rights (the ability of users at ANY level of the chain to view/modify the code) over others, namely the right to release your software without it's code (if it uses GPLed components). And if GPLed code is based off of other code, it deprives the original author the right to take the modifications back into his/her project without altering his/her license.
Each license favors certain people and certain rights, no more, no less.
The article and the poster confuse "GPL violations in software developed for the Android platform" with "GPL violations in Android". The FSF press release doesn't say "GPL violations in Android".
Indeed, the press release does promote GPLv3, but it's merely the author expressing an opinion. It's not spreading "FUD".
So the allegations here are that Edward Naughton and Florian Mueller (neither of whom I am defending, by the way) have spread FUD to strong arm people into migrating to GPLv3 so that device makers won't fear the repercussion of violating GPLv2 and then having to do impossible legwork to get back in good standing and regain a license?
Totally coincidentally, The Hurd was recently released.
Is it time to go after Linux at the FSF and Android is just an easy target? Is Linux now the enemy?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It's an even bigger joke than Hurd and RMS' conspiracy theories.
Unless, of course, Humanity wants to distribute code using any license other then their own..
Then (prepare for hidden pun) they are the little devils..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
The irony is that the first version of android contains gplv3 software : https://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/external/dosfstools.git;a=summary .
But it was quickly replaced by a bsd clone : fsck_msdos.git
I don't know if there are any product with the gplv3 fsck. May be some cupcake versions.
Which is why linux is a failure, and the BSDs have taken over the world.
Or that google picked a BSD instead of linux for android.
Basically, if you develop a free software project and want people to participate, your odds are better if you are in effect saying: "no one will benefit from your work if they are not giving back". Now the (L)GPL is not perfect in that respect -- look at the KHTML/WebKit debacle -- but it sure is better than the BSD license.
BSD is for people who either are so pure in their generosity that they hope people will take advantage of their work -- admirable ethics, but not so common, or people who think that commercialisation of their work is a desirable outcome -- weird ethics, but to each his own.
Why LLVM? for one, Apple are control freaks, and they hate not to control everything. For another, I guess there are technical reasons for it, I guess being able to port to their own proprietary platform and still release some form of SDK is important to them. But they are still a long way from being able to replace GCC... And in any case some competition in the field of compiler is something we all benefit from.
I'm periodically re-amazed at how bad /. submissions are. Quoted from the original article:
The only reason not to use GPLv3 software is if you intend to deprive your users of their fundamental software freedoms.
Only in Stallman's Orwellian political world is it a "fundamental freedom" to require somebody to supply source code. As a user of software I have the freedom to use or not use software that doesn't come with source code.
hit the wrong button... retrying the post...
I'm periodically re-amazed at how bad /. submissions are. Quoted from the original article:
And the original article's title is also highly inflammatory, as well. Frankly, I find it easy to believe that some android developers are redistributing GPL'd code in violation of the license. Is there really anyone on /. that thinks all devs got it perfect?
And the BS about FUD? Well, let's look at the first paragraph in the press release from the FSF, bolded no less:
SO the FSF is saying, "Hey, GPLv3 does a really nice thing for you - it gets you back in compliance if you've lost your license" and some random guy on /. decides that it's FUD? Come on! Are we interested in the truth or just in bashing people? (No, I don't really need an answer to the question, I already know that /. is just trollbait, nowadays)
You kind of miss the point. Yes, GPLv3 is unattractive for some firms. Apple hates it presumably because of the software patents clauses. But a FOSS license is primarily a social contract for a community. Such communities are stronger and more successful the more (a) they depend on volunteer labour and (b) they have strong rules against theft, or put it another way, they can enforce remixability. The GPLv3 is essentially the most powerful contract on Earth for growing software-building communities. All the changes to the GPL since day one have been to reinforce its anti-cheating rules.
So businesses hate this, because they depend on using others' volunteer labour for free. Big deal. They will eventually fail, as pure GPL communities build better and more accurate products. This isn't theory, it's happening today. Look at pure GPLv3 projects like ZeroMQ.org. It has no competitors even close.
There is no ideology at play here, pure competition between competing social technologies.
If you believe GPL software is becoming obscure, you are living under a rock.
My blog
How the hell you got +5 Insightful is beyond me!
Yes, "The GPL does however prevent people from distributing derivative works without the source", but how is that not a positive thing for the community, the users, and other developers? Copyright, all by itself, prohibits distributing both the work and derivative works with or without the source. Only public domain goods and BSD-ish licenses have fewer restrictions (ie. virtually all the Windows/Apple/etc software have more restrictions).
Anything you do with closed source software and libraries you can also do with GPL software. IE. negotiate your licensing terms with the author(s), and if you both agree on something, great. If not, you're stuck with the default license. For closed source stuff, that means you can't do squat about it. For GPL stuff, you can still use it if you agree to the GPL (or LGPL, as is often the case with libraries - which allows linking to closed source stuff).
Someone else already covered the tivoization, so I'll skip that.
Some might consider the ability to link in GPL code in otherwise non-GPL code and vice versa to be a fundamental freedom that open source is supposed to provide.
Really? Like what? If you're just doing it for yourself, you're allowed, so this implies that you must be talking about distribution (or you simply have no idea what you're talking about to begin with). If you're talking about distribution, then what non-GPL code are you referring to? If it's stuff you wrote and you want to make use of GPL code that you did not write, then you simply have to license your code the same way (under GPL)... why would one think they can just nab it and do whatever the hell they please with it? If one is of that mindset, then they already have no regard for copyright (same mindset that thinks its fine to distribute hacked closed source stuff as well), so why would the GPL give them any pause for concern?
If you're talking about linking to some other closed source stuff, you should really be going after the closed source camp. You'd already have to have some licensing agreement in place to distribute the closed source stuff, so why would they presume there are no rules for other software they are including?
A third possibility is that you're referring to one of the few incompatible open source licenses. Those cases are unfortunate, but authors are often willing to work with people to make exceptions and/or dual license. This is, IMO, the only valid complaint here but, in practice, this rarely comes up and, when it does, is often easily remedied. The only big one that comes to mind for me is "ZFS" and the Linux Kernel. There's an easy immediate solution (using fuse), a recompile option (users can compile it in themselves - it just can't be distributed linked-in), and a redevelopment effort (ext4's growing feature set), and either party could change licenses if it was really that critical (in a smaller project, that'd probably have happened).
Maybe by "some" you meant an extremely small minority? Which is why I think your post should be +5 Troll rather than Insightful - it is a very good Troll, if that was your intention :-)
I remember something from a few years ago about the FCC equivalent in Japan being much tougher than our beloved FCC. That have regulations requiring fixed frequencies that basically mean if you can change your broadcast frequency in software, and the software isn't locked tight, then you can't use it in Japan. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the European nations have pretty tough rules too.
This is a completely subjective conclusion. For example, one could just as easily argue that Microsoft providing a successful product has in fact served humanity, bringing an accessible, mainstream operating system platform to millions of PC users. The fact Slashdotters hate Microsoft doesn't really mean much objectively. In fact, based on your signature, you come off like a bit of an ideologue, so your post isn't surprising, but just know that your position is easily refuted.
People don't have "fundamental software freedoms." The GPL3 is merely a copyright license, and arguably a restrictive one compared to other licenses that provide more freedom to do things with the source that are prohibited under the GPL.
I think MeeGo and WebOS failed just fine on their own, without Android's help.
MeeGo was a harsh move anyway... Moblin and Maemo pushed together into one project, basically in order to get Nokia and Intel to work as buddies. No one else of significance was using either anyway. But at least Nokia put Maemo or MeeGo on their top phones... but only those phones.
The big problem, though, is the big problem of most open source: consumer want actual applications. Not things they have to hack themselves, but finished, polished applications. Nokia screwed this up on MeeGo just as much as they did on SymbianOS, only SymbianOS once held 60% of the smartphone market.. so there were some apps. And much like is was with SymbianOS, no other big hardware company cared about MeeGo.
Maybe Intel could have helped, but they really weren't ready, anyway. The original idea of Moblin and MeeGo, from Intel's perspective, was to enable low-end netbooks that weren't ready for Windows.. but that problem pretty much ironed itself out. Intel wasn't ready for the real move, x86-powered phones, and so they did nothing in particular to help out MeeGo. After all, that would have only benefited the ARM people... as if they needed the help.
And this wasn't the first time Intel sponsored a computing initiative, only to basically do so little, they had no effect. Anyone remember Native Signal Processing? Or when Intel was firmly behind the BeOS? Intel provides technical know-how in these deals, but they have virtually no effect on the marketability of the product. Without at least one big hardware champion, OS projects at worst fail, at beast remain little niche things. And in particular on devices without a common hardware platform.
I don't think Android will be closed source in the long run. I think Google rushed Honeycomb with some much ugly cruft in it (the race was to get the Xoom out by the first anniversary of the iPad, and I don't think Google was even fully on-board the tablet idea until halfway through 2010, after the iPad proved itself), it's probably in the long run a service to the Android community that these things won't be propagating around for the next few years. That's pretty much what the Google folks have said, in different words. If the sources for Ice Cream Sandwich don't show up a month or two after the first device releases, THEN I'd start to worry.
As for WebOS, some open source pieces, but large fundamental parts of the OS are closed source. That's a non-starter, unless you're looking for another Apple or Microsoft. Only, HP's dumping it, sure looks like. And they don't have a likely buyer, or they would have held off the "we're killing WebOS" announcement for a little while longer, so as not to cut the selling price into tiny pieces. And you have to wonder about the execution of it, too. The whole thing's written in JavaScript (yuk), and yet, the TouchPad had probably the worse JS performance of any yet-released tablet. Apple actually might have a good argument for running slower JavaScript (the one programming API they don't really control on iOS devices), and yet, they're doing better than twice the speed, on identical code. Palm was just too late and too closed to go anywhere with WebOS, and HP clearly had no intent to fix this.
-Dave Haynie
Both OSS and FSF licenses are necessary and are balanced by the state of the software industry. In a wide-open industry OSS does fine and software vendors can safely write and use OSS. When even a few (large/important/influential) companies start to play badly with others, close their source, and embrace and extend the standards, the demand for FSF software increases.
Presumably we are now seeing a high demand for purely open standards and software. This is enabled primarily by the wide availability of open standards and software that already exist. People seem to forget that just 20 years ago there were no widely available free operating systems, free compilers, or free application frameworks. Today there are hundreds of major examples, even from traditionally closed-source vendors. That will change in the future, as it has in the past. Then the FSF will again be able to fulfill the demand for community-centered software that prevents individuals in the industry from controlling too large a portion of the market to the detriment of others.
In short, OSS works wonderfully on a level playing field. Free Software can level any existing playing field.
Sure, as long as the company maintains its own private fork. The whole benefit of Linux is the joint R&D, and benefiting from patches upstream. If all the hackers out there that make Linux great all switch their commits to GPLv3, and they start putting out GPLv3 Linux releases, companies will definitely be in hot water, regardless of whether they can keep using their rapidly aging fork or not.
I have to object to this line of thinking.
I remember that when Linux started to become popular, it seemed crazy to many people that Linus chose the GPL, because there free operating systems out there with much more lenient licenses. Why would a vendor (Red Hat, IBM, etc.) subject themselves to the restrictions of the GPL when there are other choices?
Well, they chose Linux because of its quality. They went with the best product, and adapted themselves to the license. (Some vendors eventually learned that the GPL was good for them, because it ensured that they could get the advantages developed in-house by other vendors.)
I think a GPLv3 Android would have been just as popular as a GPLv2 Android. Vendors would have picked it because it was good, free (and encouragingly backed by Google). So, they wouldn't have locked boot loaders. Big deal! They would have adapter to the situation, and in the end the GPLv3 would have made Android a better product then it is now.
Freedom to 'close' open source software is a pretty dicey concept. Besides, you seem to be approaching the GPL issue strictly from the point of view of a corporation that wants to use it. How about the point of view of, oh say, the writers of that software? Presumably the writers chose the GPL because they wanted it to remain open. They saw it as a personal advantage to be able to have others improve on their software and give the improvements back to them in a virtuous circle. I'd bet that same impluse drives BSD contributors too. They're just a little less adamant about controlling the process.
I say this as someone opposed to the 'anti-tivoization' language. As long as Tivo (or Google) makes their changes available, they're in keeping with the GPL virtuous circle. If some of those changes are DRM 'features' you don't like, don't use them. But along with those, you might get some nice bugfixes, or disk access improvements. I don't see why sharing software and encouraging a virtuous circle of sharing requires anybody to share hardware in the same way. The whole point of open source software is that, since software costs nothing to copy, why not share it? That does not apply to hardware, and it's silly to behave as though it did.
The GPL3 anti-patent stuff makes more sense, but it functions as a poison pen, and does hurt OSS adoption. The whole issue of software patents is such a mess that it's hard to even discuss rationally - after all, prohibiting use of your GPL3 code by patent exercisers kind of accepts the validity of exercising software patents (maybe just the reality). It becomes a matter of 'I'm taking my ball and leaving', and it doesn't stop anybody from being sued anyway. The only way to do that is to get the laws changed and the patents thrown out. And I think it would do more to help get the laws changed were a patent-holding user of GPL software to go ahead and sue the writer. How insane does it have to get?
For what it's worth, I think more widespread use of the LGPL would mitigate any harm the licenses do. Again, with the LGPL, you do get all the advantages of sharing applied to your code - just not to everybody else's.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I would argue that the same thing is true for Open Source folks. The only difference between the GPL and more liberal licenses in that regard is that the GPL requires others to give back their changes if they redistribute modified copies, whereas the BSD license just asks politely.
I pretty much agree with you on your other points, although AFAICT, the LGPLv3 is just as problematic as GPLv3 because of its patent stance. You can't fight software patents through software licenses. The only useful way to fight software patents is to massively abuse them openly and repeatedly against major pro-software-patent corporations in the most trollish ways possible until those corporations realize what an unholy mess they have created and demand real reform.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Well, let's look at the three most popular pieces of GPL software:
So far, it looks to me like the three flagship GPL products are rapidly becoming obscure, and most of the other GPL products out there were always relatively obscure. Pretty much the only widely known GPL app remaining is OpenOffice.org, and a commercial company backed most of its initial development, making it a pretty bad example of Free Software beating commercial software.
I rather suspect that it has no serious competition simply because IPC and distributed computing is inherently a niche market with only a couple of real players. Free Software and Open Source both do well in niche markets. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
In other news, the open source community, for the most part, agrees that Slashdot spreads FUD against FSF to push Android. Slashdot's article emphasises supposed near-consensus in the open source community without noting any specific way of measuring what the open source community thinks.
Seriously, Google has made so many stupid mistakes with android that they won't see the end of problems, ever. Ripping off everybody's ideas and work, then reworking them, then claiming it's open source when it isn't, then ignoring app security, then downstream patent battles, then ignoring GPL at every level, then ignoring app piracy, the list goes on and on. No amount of FUD like this will help - just hard cash that each of the mistakes will cost.
Lemme get this straight, you want to allow tivoization? If so just be honest and use the BSD license, that's practically what tivoization turns the GPLv2 into anyways.
No it doesn't, you still get any code improvements/changes back, you still get to see the source code, for a BSD license these aren't guaranteed. It just means you can't load that software onto that hardware, but from a software perspective you still get all the benefits, you can take that software and use it on any other hardware you want.
Providing value in exchange for value is "Orwellian" in your world?
Even your strawman version is proof against arguments like that.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
I do not understand what is wrong with tivoization. When you but a product like a Tivo, you are buying an appliance designed to be used for one specific purpose set out in it's marketing. It's not a general purpose computer that you should expect to install and run any software you want on. If you can get past their security, then do whatever with it. But I'm not sure that locking the system down in order to retain licensing agreements from content providers is a bad thing since most people buy them specifically for that purpose.
Except the Tivo is a general purpose computer. It's just they they've made it boot into software you can't exit from, and provided no way to access that general purpose computer's features. There's nothing new about that. Most cash machines in the last 10-15 years have been general purpose computers too. Before that, I remember Siemens' ISDN protocol tester (costing 100000 quid) was deep down just a general purpose computer with an ISDN card, and some fancy software running on it.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
It's a difficult situation.
For the Android ecosystem, the GPLv3 might make sense, especially with all the patent lawsuits involved around it.
But if you look at embedded use of Linux, a lot of companies would certainly not like Linux going to GPLv3.
That's also the reason why most embedded samba installations are stuck with the old pre-GPLv3 version.
It's mostly an issue to embedded linux companies in the US market though. In Europe, it's less of an issue, as software patents are not important to most companies anyway here.
Yet, the US market is not an unimportant one (and in Europe, we have many companies which are headquartered in the US and need to follow US legal advise as well).
Where lots in the Android space now see that tivoisation of the device isn't that important (HTC now going without signed bootloader), that practice is the opposite in the embedded linux space where for example applications like protected point of sales terminals even contain liquids to destroy the flash physically if the devices are tempered with. To companies making these devices, it's a nightmare if someone would see the code and potentially crack their financial transaction network as they need the added 'security through obscurity'-layer on top of decent security to be able to sell it to their customers...
So it's not a clear decision to change for Linus. I believe he won't change his mind till the FSF creates a new GPL version that addresses those issues as well.
Personally, I find it absurd that one is with the GPL version 3 not allowed to tivo-ise it, yet it is allowed to use it into a nuclear weapon device if one chooses... and never even release the code (as there is no customer nor distribution) seems absurd to me; what is worse?
Greetings,
Jasper
The GPLv3 doesn't remove the patent time bombs. It only removes the ability for a company to submarine them into the software.
The major problem is that both the patent holder and the person inserting the code that infringes on the patent, need to be the same person for the GPLv3 to have any teeth in that regard. That's not always the case and simply injecting infringing code into something doesn't make it so- even if you can trick the patent holder into distributing it.
Providing value in exchange for value is "Orwellian" in your world?
Dictating the terms of exchange and calling it "freedom" is Orwellian.
You DO know that if you don't get a different firmware for a different country, that you can fall foul of the regulations on phone access, don't you? And if you CAN get a different firmware, you can install it and fall foul of the regulations on phone access.
So, oddly enough, they don't seem to have a problem giving you a firmware that can break regulations by the FCC, but don't want to allow you do write code that won't.
Your assertion is a common one, but is falsified by the counterpoint examples.
The problem is that it's used as a loophole to allow companies to use GPLv2 code in their products while effectively not having to give anything back - they can give you the code but with no access to the special hardware needed to run it, it's practically useless. Same deal with Android phones with locked bootloaders (and you could argue, with unavailable closed-source drivers).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
you can take that software and use it on any other hardware you want.
Assuming it's not cryptographically tied to any hardware or requires any proprietary parts you can't buy.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
In every situation where there is a potential conflict of interest, one party is going to have more freedom than the other(s).
The GPL is designed to (attempt to) maximise the freedom of the user, not both parties.
The BSD license maximises developer freedom. Also, as a developer, you are free to choose whichever licence you prefer.
Having the developer adhere to restrictions in order to maximise user freedom only sounds like doublespeak if you neglect to qualify who is being restricted, and who is being guaranteed freedom.
It would be logically impossible to maximise user freedom and developer freedom at the same time, so the FSF can't be criticised as being orwellian simply because they can't do the impossible. And they don't sinsterly cloak the fact they they are concerned purely on user freedom.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom(3rd paragraph)
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Adding a few pennies to the bank vault doesn't make the vault yours.
You can distribute your own work under any terms you like. You just can't do that with other people's work, not even by sprinkling a little of your own on it.
There's a word for this feeling you're expressing, that anything you touch belongs to you.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
You are confusing capability with freedom. Just because I don't have the means to do something doesn't mean my freedom was taken away.
If a person wrote a piece of software and gave it to another person in exchange for a sweater, that's a free trade. The author never was compelled to write the software in the first place, and the receiver was never compelled to give up a sweater for it. The receiver could demand the source to be included in exchange for the sweater. Freedom all around.
If some outside party demands that the exchange can only occur if the software includes the source, then that is not freedom for either party.
What you are talking about is something akin to consumer protection laws, and these aren't done in the name of "freedom". Requiring source is comparable to requiring a list of ingredients in food. Whether such a consumer protection law is desirable or not is debatable, but the idea that it is "freedom" is intellectually dishonest propaganda.
You're missing the argument. I never said anything about adding a little and taking over. I was refuting that requiring source code is a "fundamental freedom".
"Ginger Unicorn" replied to me in this thread and at least was replying to the argument, not some strawman. Since you brought that term in already, you'd think you'd be careful not to engage in strawman arguments.
Nothing requires you to give away your own source code. Nothing requires you to agree with Stallman. Don't like the terms? Don't use the product. Only if you think you have a right to do anything you want with other people's work do you have a problem with that.
I never said anything about adding a little and taking over.
That, roughly, is the only behavior the GPL restricts. You can't distribute other people's work on terms you dictate. If you don't want to do that, you have no beef with the GPL. "Replying to [your] argument" does not mean "accepting the lies on which it's based".
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Nothing requires you to give away your own source code.
That's true, and I never said otherwise. However, Stallman considers it a "fundamental freedom" and wants that requirement -- he's even gone so far as to advocate that it be enshrined into law if copyright ever went away. That's taking away freedom under the guise of freedom, and that's why I called it Orwellian.
Except the Tivo is a general purpose computer. It's just they they've made it boot into software you can't exit from, and provided no way to access that general purpose computer's features.
So your second sentence proves your first sentence wrong ... and you still don't get it.
A TiVo is NOT A GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTER. It was designed and built for a specific task. It matters not one single bit that it shares components that a general purpose computer shares. If thats your argument, then my wrist watch is a general purpose computer and you're a moron.
You can change it ... and make it into a general purpose computer, again reenforcing the original point that it ISN'T A GENERAL PURPOSE computer.
It doesnt' become one just because you want it to so you can try to make a point. If it was a general purpose computer you'd be able to use it for any general purpose out of the box. You can't because it isn't.
I can race my Jeep with or without any modification, that doesn't make it a race car, and only an idiot would try to argue that it did.
Most cash machines in the last 10-15 years have been general purpose computers too.
No they weren't. For example, they have cash drawers and credit card readers, no one on earth would consider putting those two things on a general purpose computer at home.
was deep down just a general purpose computer with an ISDN card, and some fancy software running on it.
Built for a specific purpose and intended for no other, making it not a general purpose computer.
By your definition the ECU in my car, my TV, my toaster, my microwave, my toy radar gun, my radios for my RC cars/planes, and my XBox are all general purpose computers, yet no person with any sort of grasp on reality at all would call them such things.
Its not a general purpose computer just because it has an x86 chip in it either.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Anything you do with closed source software and libraries you can also do with GPL software.
Theoretically, sure. Practically, no.
I can easily license Windows for use in my own private projects, takes about 20 minutes. There is absolutely no way that can be done with the Linux kernel. Just tracking down all the copyright holders (every submitter since Linus started accepting patches) would be more expensive then just buying a windows license for every person on the planet I think, there is a good portion of time with no revision control system to even give you a hint as to who the submitters were.
why would one think they can just nab it and do whatever the hell they please with it? If one is of that mindset, then they already have no regard for copyright (same mindset that thinks its fine to distribute hacked closed source stuff as well), so why would the GPL give them any pause for concern?
Because thats the impression they get when zealots like yourself and Stallman go off ranting about how OSS kicks the llamas ass. You rant and rave about how it gives freedom to do with software what you want ... when in actualality, GPL is nothing more than a set of restrictions defining exactly what you CAN NOT DO with the software. Its hypocrisy in living color, even if you're too dense/brainwashed to see it.
You'd already have to have some licensing agreement in place to distribute the closed source stuff, so why would they presume there are no rules for other software they are including?
Negotiating software license agreements is a rather simple process for closed source software. Two parties agree that both sides have something the other wants, then they negotiate what to exchange so both sides are happy, generally this involves money changing hands.
Negotiating software license agreements for GPLd software to be used in a package with contains closed source is impossible. Its a non-starter, because GPL is the most restrictive license there is. It allows no room for anything that doesn't believe exactly what it believes. Its GPL all the way or not at all, and you can fuck off if you don't agree with that. Again, making it more restrictive than any closed source software package I've ever dealt with. It is easier for me to work with Windows kernel code than it is to deal with a 50 line perl script covered by GPL.
you should really be going after the closed source camp
The only response I have to this is simply: Go fuck yourself you spoiled hippie.
And I'll follow it up with: GPL is really taking over the world ... isn't it?
one of the few incompatible open source licenses.
There is only really one incompatible OSS license, and thats GPL and its children.
Those cases are unfortunate, but authors are often willing to work with people to make exceptions and/or dual license. This is, IMO, the only valid complaint here but, in practice, this rarely comes up and, when it does, is often easily remedied. The only big one that comes to mind for me is "ZFS" and the Linux Kernel. There's an easy immediate solution (using fuse), a recompile option (users can compile it in themselves - it just can't be distributed linked-in), and a redevelopment effort (ext4's growing feature set), and either party could change licenses if it was really that critical (in a smaller project, that'd probably have happened).
...
So let me get this straight, you think FUSE is an option? Or that users should be compiling their own code for what should have been done by the actual kernel developers? You think ext4 is ANYTHING like ZFS? And the only solution you have is 'someone has to change their license' ...
FUSE isn't an option for anyone that isn't living in mommies basement. Its fine if you're dicking around at home, its worthle
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
They are intended to secure against the removal of your rights.
Ironic, considering they are in fact removing your rights themselves in an attempt to prevent someone else from doing it.
I'm afraid of dieing, will you kill me first so I don't have to? Thats pretty much what your argument for GPL equates too.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
and I never said otherwise
So your objection is to a fantasy world that doesn't exist? Hey, I've got some pretty strange fantasies myself. People I share them with leave the junk on the floor and we have a good time with the good parts. The bad parts of mine aren't as bad as the bad parts of Stallman's, but then again the good parts of mine, the parts that actually get taken up and adopted, don't change the world. The GPL's one of the good parts of this world, and it's yours if you want it.
Did you have a problem with the real GPL, in this world, or are you posting just because you like to rave against fantasies?
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Er, not really. You should try reading the license sometime. It's not that hard of a read surprisingly, and in doing so it should become immediately obvious what it restricts and why.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Required reading to be minimally informed:
So your objection is to a fantasy world that doesn't exist?
My objection is to propaganda that equates regulation with freedom. The propaganda isn't fantasy, it's real, and it was what I originally replied to: "The only reason not to use GPLv3 software is if you intend to deprive your users of their fundamental software freedoms."
You must be a freedom-depriving person to not use GPLv3! Ridiculous.
No, they gave back. You just couldn't run your changes on their hardware. But you could get similar hardware and enjoy the benefits of their changes. The argument surrounding tivoization was about using the code on the device after you changed it as you alluded to.
These are two separate concepts and I would argue that creating a license that basically says anyone who uses "and distributes" this software must allow anyone else to use the device it came installed on in any way they wish, is far beyond anything a software license should cover. I mean software or code that is copyrighted mandating stipulations pertaining to the hardware as a condition of the license is a bit dangerous. What if Sony decided their CDs could only be played on Sony CD player devices using the same license-hardware concept.
Who equated regulation with freedom? That's every bit as simpleminded and hotheaded a rendition as what prompted your first post, and it's a lot more dangerous. It leads cretins to equate the absence of regulation with freedom. Everyone starts with childish, ignorant wishes, over time they learn better and their wishes grow a bit of sophistication, or they die. But if you think government regulation is antithetical to liberty, you're getting your view of history from the people government was instituted to protect you against. You just don't know it, yet.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Who equated regulation with freedom?
The person I cited, who is just parroting the stance by Stallman. The GPL is enforced by law, and Stallman argues being given access to source code is a "fundamental freedom", which is complete nonsense. If I object to giving out source code it isn't because I am against a "fundamental freedom".
But if you think government regulation is antithetical to liberty
Of course it is. However, there's still a lot of regulation I approve of, especially with regards to food, medicine, and cars. I just don't approve of them in the name of freedom. Benjamin Franklin quotes be damned, I like them in the name of safety.
Assuming it's not cryptographically tied to any hardware
It's open source, so no, that's not an issue.
or requires any proprietary parts you can't buy.
Thanks captain obvious, yes if you don't have the hardware required by the software then the software is useless, but a software license has no business dictating the hardware otherwise it would be a product license.
The person I cited [equated regulation with freedom]
No, he didn't. Where what you say bears any resemblance to reality you're equivocating in almost every word. Enforcing sale terms is a matter of law, of regulation, the difference between the two is a technicality here; it doesn't matter here whether Congress wrote the rule or delegated the writing of it. Laws aren't freedom, but they're necessary to preserve it out here in the real world.
I just don't approve of [laws] in the name of freedom.
I believe you just worked yourself around to saying that writing laws to secure the blessings of liberty is anathema to you. Would that be one of the Franklin quotes that can be damned?
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
just because I don't have the means to do something doesn't mean my freedom was taken away.
That's one interpretation, but not the definition. Freedom is a very general term, that needs context to be used unambiguously, which the FSF do very clearly. This argument is a straw man.
If some outside party demands that the exchange can only occur...is something akin to consumer protection laws
Consumer protection laws are mandated by the state. The FSF doesn't mandate use of the GPL. The copyright holder voluntarily agrees with the user to supply the source by choosing the adopt the GPL. There is no outside party demanding anything - it's entirely between the user and the copyright holder. If the copyright holder then reneges on the agreement, the user can of course enlist legal aid from an outside party to assist in enforcing the licence that the copyright holder freely and legally agreed to, but that is a separate matter, and is definitely freedom for one party - the user.
The argument that you're making seems to hinge on the premise that all software producers are obliged to adopt the GPL, and all users obliged to accept it, of which obviously neither are the case.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
That's one interpretation, but not the definition. Freedom is a very general term, that needs context to be used unambiguously, which the FSF do very clearly. This argument is a straw man.
Free software appeals to liberty, not capability -- hence "libre" software. Notice how the other freedoms are actually freedoms in the most common usage, the liberty sense. Without copyright law, you would be able to do all the things GPL is granting except for one: Requiring source is the only "freedom" that contradicts the notion of freedom as-in-liberty appealed to in the others.
Consumer protection laws are mandated by the state.
It was an analogy. FSF is using copyright to provide the same consumer protection, only they try to claim requiring source is "freedom" as-in-liberty.
The argument that you're making seems to hinge on the premise that all software producers are obliged to adopt the GPL, and all users obliged to accept it, of which obviously neither are the case.
No, I'm only arguing against the propaganda.
No, he didn't.
Yes he did. He said if you don't choose GPLv3, which is a legally enforced regulation based on copyright, that you are against freedom. That's pure FSF-based propaganda.
I believe you just worked yourself around to saying that writing laws to secure the blessings of liberty is anathema to you.
No, I said no such thing. I said I'm in favor of certain consumer protection laws, which have nothing to do with liberty. Rather, they take it away. A prime example is requiring a list of ingredients in food. I like the law, but it takes away liberty. Notice that the same law doesn't apply to restaurants, yet people still manage to eat out.
Would that be one of the Franklin quotes that can be damned?
It's the oft-quoted: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's used a lot on Slashdot to argue against regulations. Of course, what's "essential liberty" and what is meant by "temporary safety" is up for debate.
There are laws that directly protect freedom, such as being protected from violence against others, but that's not what I'm talking about here.
"So your second sentence proves your first sentence wrong ... and you still don't get it."
...
Not at all. I get it very clearly indeed. My $DAYJOB is programming such things.
"It was designed and built for a specific task. It matters not one single bit that it shares components that a general purpose computer shares. If thats your argument, then my wrist watch is a general purpose computer and you're a moron."
Your argument is empty. They took a general purpose computer architecture (a general purpose processor with general purpose busses on commodity interconnects leading out from it, and plugged perfectly standard peripherals into those busses), and simply restricted what you could do with it in software. The hardware is still 100% general purpose. Just because you have know idea what a bootloader can do doesn't make my argument false, if anything it makes you the moron.
In no way does your wristwatch have a general purpose processor with commodity interconnects, and perfectly standard (for a general purpose computer) peripherals.
My mobile phone (which I worked on as $DAYJOB), however, can be turned into everything from a desktop computer (USB for keyboard/mouse/networking, wireless for networking also, TV-out for the screen, and micro-SD for bulk storage) to a router, an intrusion detection system (it has cameras), or even a mobile communication device.
"By your definition the ECU in my car, my TV, my toaster, my microwave, my toy radar gun, my radios for my RC cars/planes, and my XBox are all general purpose computers, yet no person with any sort of grasp on reality at all would call them such things."
Anyone with more than half a brain would immediately detect that as a complete straw man. Alas you seem to have not been able to detect that flaw in your argument yourself.
"Its not a general purpose computer just because it has an x86 chip in it either."
I wish I'd read that first, as I would have known that you really were too ignorant to be worth responding to.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
GPLv3, which is a legally enforced regulation
If you can't make your argument without putting your thumb on the scale like that, why not just admit you posted thoughtlessly in the first place and got smacked for it? Arguing the way you're doing isn't clever. Go away. Do your troll victory dance and revel in being king-for-a-day of the .tribe so completely worthless you don't even know you exist unless you're pissing people off. Mutter to yourself and go try to find people a little less acquainted with reality to prey on. Just, please, don't say you're in it so deep as to actually believe that, or any of the other psychotic distortions you just posted. Do you actually equate liberty with the absence of regulation, as if distinguishing liberty from anarchy somehow diminishes liberty?
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Keep on basking in Stallman's propaganda. Do you actually equate legally enforced restrictions as "freedom"?
If some outside party demands that the exchange can only occur if the software includes the source, then that is not freedom for either party.
At this point, though, you're trading somebody else's sweater. You want to infringe on the rights of the person who lent you the sweater in the first place so you can gather little pieces of paper selling it to others.
I know that freedom cannot survive in any society large enough to afford anonymity without legally enforced restrictions. That doesn't mean I think they're the same thing. But we're going in circles now; you're not thinking. There's something screwy with comment links atm, or maybe it's just chrome and slashdot not getting along as usual, anyway links to the comment I mean go to a different one so find "Who equated regulation with freedom?" above.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
You're not thinking, because you are denying that placing restrictions on what may be copied is the opposite of freedom.