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.
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!
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.
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
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 :-)
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.