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.
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.
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!
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.
Section 4 is that very clause. If you "copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under" the GPLv2, your rights are "automatically terminate[d]." There is no mechanism to regain a license under the GPLv2. And if you think that you regain such a license under GPLv2 section 6, the end of section 4 takes care of that: "parties who have received [..] rights [..] from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long [as they] remain in full compliance.
If this wasn't the case, the GPLv2 itself would have no force, because any past violation could be pasted over by merely being granted a new license from some other sublicensor. GPLv3 fixes this problem by adding reinstatement language to section 8.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
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
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.
That's not what the GPLv2 says. It says very clearly what you must do to distribute.
As long as you comply, you can distribute. When you don't comply, you can't. There is nothing about any requirement to obtain the permission of the authors - which would be a violation of clause 6 of the GPLv2, as it would impose additional conditions beyond the license itself. Just complying with the license is sufficient.
Additionally, the recipients don't receive their license from the distributor, but from the original authors (clause #6). Even if the distributor is out of compliance, that does NOT affect recipients of the code.
See that second bolded section - nobody can demand that someone who was once out of compliance, once they are back in compliance, seek the approval of ANY of the copyright holders before recommencing distribution. The article is pure FUD.
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.