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

FSF

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:FSF

[NoAkai]

Thank you, this summary is horribly written. News, sure, but this isn't a personal opinion piece. That's what the comment field is for.

Re:FSF

[Aladrin]

More unsubstantiated arguments? I don't know if we've been trolled, or you were really trying to argue effectively, and failed utterly?

Re:FSF

[bonch]

It's getting quite tiresome how Slashdot's response to almost everything it disagrees with is to robotically label it "FUD," as if that somehow refutes the argument.

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

[rubycodez]

so then they would have to open source them. a good thing

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[X0563511]

How so? I wasn't aware that you were suddenly prevented from loading "tainted" modules into the kernel.

Sure, maybe you can't build them in. You don't have to. That's one of the things an initial ram filesystem does - lets you store the modules and utilities you need to boot, without building them into the kernel.

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[queazocotal]

The cell-modem is in almost all cases (apart from the very bottom end) running on a completely seperate CPU.
It is basically identical - and often connected the same way - as a plug-in USB cellmodem. There is seperate closed firmware, usually signed, on the modem, and the linux side never touches anything more than 'dial x'.

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[GameboyRMH]

I assume you're being snarky (open source will never sell hurr durr) because there's nothing in the GPLv3 to prevent that.

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

[Todd Knarr]

The FCC doesn't really care whether the phone is fully open or not. All they care about is that the radio in the phone not operate outside the allowed parameters. The problem comes from the manufacturers wanting to use radio hardware that isn't limited to the permissible parameters, and limit it's operation using easily-changed software controls. If they used radio hardware that was itself limited to permissible parameters, there wouldn't be any problem with it being open. But that would make the hardware more expensive and cut into profit margins.

Note also that "permissible parameters" vary depending on the user, not the device. If the user happens to have an FCC operator's license, the permissible parameters for a cel phone may be radically different from what an unlicensed user would be allowed.

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[uniquename72]

Right - that's why none of these companies have sold phones with unlocked bootloaders (except of course Motorola, HTC, Samsung...).

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[hitmark]

Indeed. Wifi-b also has this issue as Europe have 2 extra channels that can not be used in US, and japan has 1 that is outside of both of these.

So what happens is that they make devices that can work everywhere, but is limited based on the driver shipped in the box (or even the nationality settings of the os used). Question is: if a citizen of a European nation travels to USA and happens to use one of those illegal channels, will his device be confiscated?

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[Microlith]

The hardware vendors isolate for a couple of reasons:

- Trade secrets
- Performance (radios require an RTOS)

And yes, virtually all high end devices have a separate CPU, RAM, and storage space for the baseband stack, accessible only via GPIO or USB interfaces.

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:Locked Bootloaders

[jellomizer]

To bad it isn't the real world.
Google has only so much pull... Companies choose android for a few reasons.
1. It is free as in beer.
2. It is free enough as in speech for them to do what they want with it.
3. It is widely used, they want to spend more time making hardware then writing OS code.
4. Googles name has some weigh but that is about it.

If Google makes their OS in a way that hinders the phone makers business model if they choose the use the product... They wont use it, and Google can yell all they want but the maker doesn't need to choose that platform. Google is a big company but it really cannot take on to many enemies at once. The mobile phone market isn't as dominated as the Desktop market is with Microsoft. There are good competing platforms that are just waiting for a Google mess-up like that.

And with the mobile market. Google would probably anger more then just the Phone manufactures, but the Carriers as well, who are often the biggest sellers of these devices. Google vs. ATT + Verizon + Sprint + Samsung + LG + ... These guys are big and powerful too... You may be the biggest kid in the block but the block if filled with a lot of tough kids too.

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[melikamp]

I am skeptical that manufacturers want to play the patent game. On average, no one wins in that game but patent trolls and lawyers.

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[rubycodez]

red herring. killing service and viral malware can and has been be done already, without low level access.

Microsoft and others made the same argument about OSS for PC and servers.

It's just another computer

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[SomeKDEUser]

So no platform at all? Having a complete OS is _hard_. In fact, it is way too expensive/high risk for any "focus-on-the-next-quarter" companies. Apple did it (and iterated from very simple devices, with very limited interactions), but they think long term. Nokia did it over many years, and not well enough. MS could not muscle its way in the market. RIM started from an embedded UNIX.

Trade secrets are useless. Nvidia could publish the complete schematics to their silicon, give the code to their drivers, and still no one could do worse than copy it exactly, which means the competition-copycats would always be years behind.

No, the point of the GPL is that it forces people to acknowledge that the value a company adds is the work of their engineers/support staff/designers. Not the illusory holding of some "intellectual property" which brings revenue by itself only if they become patent trolls. Sure there is some blah about "software freedom", but this is irrelevant to the real benefit which is to foster an ecosystem where trust and cooperation are enforced, for the benefit of all.

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[DriedClexler]

Sure, the GPLv3 would allow sale of Android phones, but providers (assholes though they may be) would not be willing to put Android on their phones (at least on *as many* phones) if it didn't allow them a certain level of control of the device.

The GP's point is like saying that if Microsoft had to GPLv3 their software, they'd stop selling it, at least in its current form.

Re:Locked Bootloaders

[Barefoot Monkey]

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.

Give the user his own private key and honour it properly. That's all that is required. You don't need to disclose vendor private keys.

What Oddly Weak and Pathetic FUD

[eldavojohn]

(an earlier LWN link that may or may not work)

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,

The FSF is indeed generating FUD

[tomhudson]

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.

Re:The FSF is indeed generating FUD

[HarrySquatter]

There is no "you lose your rights forever" clause in the GPLv2 license.

What they were stating is that in order to regain your GPLv2 license you have to get approval from ALL copyright holders and in the case of something like the Linux kernel it would be nigh impossible to get this. Hence, while you are technically true, at the same time if you can't get approval from all license holders it is effectively the same thing.

Re:The FSF is indeed generating FUD

[dondelelcaro]

There is no "you lose your rights forever" clause in the GPLv2 license.

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.

Re:The FSF is indeed generating FUD

[tomhudson]

What they were stating is that in order to regain your GPLv2 license you have to get approval from ALL copyright holders and in the case of something like the Linux kernel it would be nigh impossible to get this.

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.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

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.

Re:The FSF is indeed generating FUD

[tomhudson]

The clause you cite does not say that you lose your rights to distribute forever. See clause 6 of the GPLv2, which is the license of the linux kernel. As long as anyone is in compliance, they can distribute. Saying that you lose your license forever is an attempt to impose further restrictions over and above those of the terms of the license, and as such, is itself a violation of the license.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Please show where, in the terms of the license, it says that there is any additional requirement, over and above the actual terms of the license, to distribute, or that licenses are terminated in perpetuity, even if you come back into compliance.

The fact is, once you are in compliance again, you have the right to redistribute under the terms of the license. There is no such thing, anywhere in the license, that states you lose the right to redistribute forever.

Re:The FSF is indeed generating FUD

[tomhudson]

And clause 6 says that EVERY COPY received grants the recipient a separate valid license. You can reinstate your rights simply by downloading a new copy and staying in compliance with the terms of the license that was granted with the new copy.

Here is the actual text:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

1. Every copy distributed comes with its' own separate license to redistribute.
2. Nobody may impose restrictions other than those found in the license itself.

So it is as simple as downloading a new copy, and staying in compliance with the license that new copy grants you. The old license is terminated, but who cares - you have a new license, granted by the new copy, and you are now in compliance and intend to stay that way, right?

Attempting to say "only one license per user, and if it's terminated, that's it" is FUD that is directly contradicted by clause 6. The FSF article is attempting to say otherwise, and it is clearly in the wrong.

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

[Hatta]

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.

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.

Article is a strawman

[gr8_phk]

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.

Re:ah FSF

[GameboyRMH]

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).

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.

article misrepresents the FSF press release.

[blinking_at]

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".

Re:ah FSF

[SomeKDEUser]

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.

Re:ah FSF

[Raenex]

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.

Re:ah FSF

[unrtst]

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 :-)

Re:ah FSF

[bonch]

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.

Re:ah FSF

[Raenex]

Providing value in exchange for value is "Orwellian" in your world?

Dictating the terms of exchange and calling it "freedom" is Orwellian.

Re:ah FSF

[Raenex]

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.

What the GPLv3 is about (was Re:Locked Bootloaders

[doom]

Required reading to be minimally informed:

• GPL v3 faq
• tivoization
• GPL
• the tivo series 2 upgrade