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."

Comments

Re:ah FSF

[Hatta]

The difference is that Microsoft's agenda serves only themselves, while the FSF's agenda serves humanity as a whole.

Locked Bootloaders

[ArcRiley]

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.

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[jensend]

If Android were GPLv3 licensed not a single major manufacturer would have touched it and not a single major carrier would have offered such phones.

Google knew all these folks are way too obsessed with playing the patent game and way too distrustful of having to release all their code to use a GPL3-licensed platform. That's why just about everything in Android is Apache licensed (like BSD but with minimal patent licensing language).

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[HarrySquatter]

No, they would just choose to skip supporting that OS because they aren't going to open source the code. Or do you live in some fantasy world that exists outside of the real world?

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[Microlith]

The GPLv3 prohibits the use of GPLv3'd software on devices that implement signatures as a means of execution control unless the user is given the key that is used to sign the binaries. (Not sure if supplying a means for registering a 3rd party key would suffice.)

So if you implemented a scheme where all binaries, before execution, were signature checked for your $private_vendor_key and denied if it was missing, then you'd be in violation of the GPLv3 if you didn't give the user $private_vendor_key. This was put in place to defeat the end-run that was TiVOization.

Re:ah FSF

[Hatta]

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.

Re:ah FSF

[hedwards]

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.

Re:ah FSF

[GameboyRMH]

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.