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."

3 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. The FSF is indeed generating FUD by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. This is absurd by flymolo · · Score: 1, Informative

    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
  3. Re:Locked Bootloaders by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1, Informative

    And... how many companies would use that version? Parts of it absolutely have to be locked out, yet link and work, such as the radio. While not impossible to get into the radio, the FCC (I could be talking out of my arse here, so someone with more knowledge can confirm or deny this general memory of mine) doesn't want the entire population walking around with fully open phones, even if the companies would supply them. They would fail to get licensing.

    While not directly bootloader related (I sympathize with you, I really really do, I run CyanogenMod), GPLv3 has had some issues playing nice. I don't remember all of those issues, but I know several companies have balked at GPLv3. And FSF has been moving into this Midas "Everything we touch turns to GPL Gold!" creeping in for a long time now. And that's just NOT going to fly with cellular communications, period.

    Tablets, you betcha! But we have to remember with phones, regardless of how little we use these things to actually talk, they are still phones and they are heavily regulated and must be licensed before they can be operated.

    --
    I8-D