After 30 Years of the Free Software Foundation, Where Do We Stand?

An anonymous reader writes with this interview with John Sullivan, Executive Director of The Free Software Foundation. "There is a growing concern about government surveillance. At the same time, those of us who live and breathe technology do so because it provides us with a service and freedom to share our lives with others. There is a tacit assumption that once we leave the store, the device we have in our pocket, backpack, or desk is ours. We buy a computer, a tablet, a smartphone, and we use applications and apps without even thinking about who really owns the tools and whether we truly own any of it. You purchase a device, yet you are not free to modify it or the software on it in any way. It begs the question of who really owns the device and the software?"

Comments

It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[Anonymous Coward]

...it raises the question.

Re: It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Honestly, it's not that hard.

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. Fixing that idiom error is a rough toad to hoe. Most people just ankle the line because they're so well heeled.

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[kogut]

I think this particular logical fallacy needs a new name. The phrase is non-intuitive and confusing to me. While the common incorrect usage is quite intuitive.

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[Anonymous Coward]

This begs the question, though.

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[ShanghaiBill]

The phrase is non-intuitive and confusing to me. While the common incorrect usage is quite intuitive.

The solution is to never use the phrase in your own writing or speaking. If you use it correctly, most people will be confused. If you use it incorrectly (as most people do) you will look uneducated, and may be attacked by pedants. So just avoid it entirely. Instead, use either "raises the question", "circular argument", or "assuming the conclusion".

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[Anonymous Coward]

beg the question
  If a statement or situation begs the question, it causes
you to ask a particular question:
Spending the summer travelling around India is a great idea, but it does beg the question of how we can afford it.
To discuss the company's future begs the question of whether it has a future.
  to talk about something as if it we

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you've officially showcased your ignorance.

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[jones_supa]

Exactly. I don't even know what is the right or wrong usage of the phrase "begs the question", but I do know that every time it is mentioned, someone starts to whine about it.

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid fucking laowai. What a fat, disgusting turd like you fails to understand is that human languages are dynamic. "Begs the question" is no longer incorrect. Deal with it.

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/begs-the-question

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[invictusvoyd]

english aside, the reality is , it really begs the question . I mean look at the phones today!

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[meta-monkey]

"Begging the question" really means "assuming an answer to a question that was never asked." You're begging the audience to just grant you validation on arguments that support your main argument, without proof or debate.

Wrong usage: "Prison populations are disproportionately black. This begs the question, 'is the justice system racist?'"

It does not beg that question. It raises that question. We don't know the answer to the question (well, we do, but pretend this is the first time somebody noticed that, and now the question has been raised, and so they're going to go answer it).

Right usage: "The solution to violent crime is simple: lock up more black people."

That's an invalid argument that begs the question. You've just begged (acceptance without proof of your implied answers to) the questions "are black people violent criminals?" and "will locking them up reduce violent crime?" Those questions were never raised, you've presented no proof or valid arguments, you've just assumed the answers are "yes" and the audience will either naturally agree or not notice your error in logic. You're just begging the listener to NOT raise those questions, to NOT require you to provide supporting evidence for your answers, and just give you that part of the debate for free.

Whining about it, I agree, is pointless. I like the GP's advice: just don't use it. The meaning of the phrase has been lost, but using it in the colloquial manner is just ceding to ignorance. I'm not going to go be a bitch about other people doing it, but I'm not going to do it myself.

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Right usage: "The solution to violent crime is simple: lock up more black people."

Not wishing to be pedantic but ...

This "Right usage" did not include the phrase "begs the question". Ergo it is not the right usage of the phrase.

That fucking icon

[Anonymous Coward]

Every topic on Slashdot has it's own customized icon next to the story. Done by the same artist, they are kind of lame, but they are uniform.

Except for fucking GNU articles. Every goddamned GNU article has to have that hideous, smiling.... "thing". I suppose it's supposed to be ananthorpomorphized goat or something.... but it's hideous.

I see that, all I can think of is, how that thing must smell. The smell must be overpowering. And then I think of RMS. All in all, the wave of nausea I obtain from such mental imagery does not put me in a charitable mood.

Re:That fucking icon

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a wildebeast which is also called a gnu. You'd probably spend less time spent typing "gnu animal" into google than you spent in your expletive rant. You wouldn't likely donate to their charity anyway, so don't make up some bullshit like you would if not for their choice to icons. I'd hope the people that do donate to them have a little more thought involved in their decision making process. Frothy piss.

Re:That fucking icon

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to sign your posts with your name, why not just make an account?

Re:That fucking icon

[Anonymous Coward]

I gnu that already.

Re:That fucking icon

[binarylarry]

It was originally called the Stallman Baphomet before some rebranding in the mid 1980's.

Re:That fucking icon

[Anonymous Coward]

This will scare the hell out of you then, that animal is real and runs wild in Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildebeest

Guess you're an ignorant dumbfuck

That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

We buy a computer, a tablet, a smartphone, and we use applications and apps without even thinking about who really owns the tools and whether we truly own any of it.

That's because only a vanishingly small percentage of the population really cares about hacking on their devices. I know this is heresy here on Slashdot, but it's true. 99+% of the population simply don't give a shit whether or not they can build their own applications for the device.

Why?

Because 99+% of the population does not have the necessary time, skill, and interest to do so. It's not that people are dumb - it's that they just don't care about replacing the existing software that lets them do all the things they want to do with their devices.

Re:That's because

[Em Adespoton]

And yet, the majority of iPhones in Asia are jailbroken. Why? Because they care about replacing the existing software because it doesn't let them do all the things they want?

Re:That's because

[TWX]

Even for those of us that do have an inclination for digging into the working parts of our devices, times come where we just want the darned thing to work.

I've been using Linux since the 2.0.0 kernel debuted in 1996. I have not rooted my phone, because unlike the Linux boxes that I've set up as my workstations, I need my phone to work 100% of the time. If I break my computer it's not a big deal, I have both other hobbies that don't use computers, and I have other computers themselves. By contrast I have one phone, and based on both the costs for subscribing multiple handsets and the cost of those handsets themselves (and their penchant for only being replaced when they're actually physically broken in my case) I do not have a spare phone to revert to should I break the current one.

I'm a geek that figures out how just about everything works, but I don't necessarily feel a need to take everything apart simply because I know how it works.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

I am very much the same.

When I have two computers working, I'll play with one and use the other to find information to fix it. My Android phone (Galaxy Nexus S) is not rooted, it works fine for me. Why would I change it?

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course you have some sort of data to back up your claim?

Re:That's because

[farble1670]

And yet, the majority of iPhones in Asia are jailbroken. Why?

so they can installed pirated apps.

Re:That's because

[ihtoit]

how about because there is no DMCA or other such legal bullshit preventing them from doing what they want with HARDWARE THEY OWN??

Re:That's because

[farble1670]

let's not get all high and mighty about freedom and privacy. it's about installing pirated software. call a spade a spade, that's all i'm saying.

Re:That's because

[Trogre]

That might have been true a couple of years ago, but now that it's common knowledge that your device is probably spying on you, people are suddenly interested in how to make their devices NOT spy on them.

Re:That's because

[rockout]

Those two things (yours and the GP's post) are not mutually exclusive.

Re:That's because

[Em Adespoton]

https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-...
Looks like I was looking at older data.

However, the answer is likely that it was an easy way to unlock phones sold in the N. American market. Every time Apple releases a new phone, a bunch are bought up on the west coast by people who jailbreak them, unlock them, and then sell them in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China. This likely accounts for both the large number of jailbroken devices and for the decline, as a larger and larger number of legit devices are sold directly into the Chinese market.

Re:That's because

[Microlith]

Obviously, that's the only reason people use PCs and not consoles. On PCs everyone just pirates everything, no one ever pirates anything. That's why there's nothing happening at all on PCs and everything happens on consoles.

Re:That's because

[schnell]

how about because there is no DMCA or other such legal bullshit preventing them from doing what they want with HARDWARE THEY OWN??

Since when has "ownership" ever equated to "I can do anything I want with it?"

• I have a car but I am not legally free to disable the seatbelt or airbags. Does that mean I don't own my car?
• I have a house. I signed a contract when I purchased it saying I would abide by the rules of a "Home Owner's Association" which regulates what colors I can paint it, and how I can decorate it. Does that mean I don't own my house?
• I have a book but am not legally allowed to xerox all the pages of it and sell or give those copies away to other people. Does that mean that I don't own the book?

In no modern society has "ownership" ever had anything to do with "has no restrictions on the usage of." If you want to debate whether users have adequate freedom to do what they want with their electronics, that is absolutely an arguable topic! But please don't say it has anything to do with "ownership."

Re: That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a car but I am not legally free to disable the seatbelt or airbags. Does that mean I don't own my car?

You are free to do that. Just don't drive on the public roads you don't own or expect your insurance to pay out.

I have a house. I signed a contract when I purchased it saying I would abide by the rules of a "Home Owner's Association" which regulates what colors I can paint it, and how I can decorate it. Does that mean I don't own my house?

Yes, it does. That's why many people avoid them. Or why in some historic districts, get tax writeoffs for selling that ownership so to speak.

I have a book but am not legally allowed to xerox all the pages of it and sell or give those copies away to other people. Does that mean that I don't own the book?

That is exactly what copyrights are about, saying who does own the intellectual property of the book. You merely own an object, unless you purchase ownership of the contents. Or until it hits the public domain.

Re:That's because

[Grishnakh]

Because they care about replacing the existing software because it doesn't let them do all the things they want?

so they can installed pirated apps.

Well, the existing software wouldn't let them install pirated apps, so it looks like the OP was correct.

Are you advocating that our devices, which we pay for and own, spy on us and prevent us from doing things the government doesn't approve of? It's a pretty slippery slope from not allowing you to install pirated software to spying on you and sending your information to someone for nefarious uses even though your actions are completely ethical.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

They are jailbroken so they can pirate software.

Re:That's because

[Grishnakh]

I have a book but am not legally allowed to xerox all the pages of it and sell or give those copies away to other people. Does that mean that I don't own the book?

There is nothing stopping you from xeroxing all the pages of your book and giving away those copies. You might get sued (not likely) by the publisher or other copyright owner after the fact, but there is no technological measure preventing you from doing so. Your photocopy machine will happily copy these pages for you.

This is quite different from a non-jailbroken phone which doesn't allow you to install any app you want.

It's one thing for there to be a law saying you can't do something, and if you do you can be sued by the person you're harming, and quite another thing for a device you own to prevent you from doing what you want with it.

As for seatbelts or airbags, it depends on the exact make and model, but newer cars may throw up some roadblocks if you disable airbags. However, this is really apples and oranges: copyright violation is not a matter of public safety, and isn't even a crime (or shouldn't be, I guess the stupid DMCA makes it one, it's supposed to be a tort only). Anything to do with automobiles is a matter of public safety and therefore deserves a lot of regulation.

Re:That's because

[kuzb]

That, and the devices are becoming less and less hackable while simultaneously becoming more and more disposable.

Re: That's because

[tepples]

That is exactly what copyrights are about, saying who does own the intellectual property of the book. You merely own an object, unless you purchase ownership of the contents. Or until it hits the public domain.

The owner of the physical copy is unlikely to survive long enough to see the contents enter the public domain.

Re:That's because

[Darinbob]

However I suspect a larger number than 1% care about being able to fix a broken device without throwing it away and buying a new one, or returning it to the manufacturer for repairs. They don't have to know about how to fix the device they just need to know about someone who can do this. It's like the old television repair service, the market at the time wanted to have their expensive televisions fixed and would not have accepted an excuse that they needed to get a new model.

Re:That's because

[ihtoit]

ooh, car analogy. OK, we'll start with that:

In England, there is no law REQUIRING you to WEAR a seatbelt. There is a law REQUIRING front dual airbags, and belts to be fitted on all seats and that all safety devices are BSI certified. That is where the analogy ends. Fucking with vehicle safety devices falls under "criminal negligence" and can get you sent to jail. Fucking with your phone's firmware isn't likely to kill anyone.

House: It's up to you if you want to buy property in a gated community, you take the consequences of your choice even if it means you don't actually get to paint the outside shocking pink. There are districts where this would be allowed. I can name one right now: Fernandina Beach, Florida. Another: Daytona Beach, Florida. Another: Jacksonville, Florida. Another: Eastbourne, East Sussex. There's a whole street full of properties in a rather fetching pastel pink in Brighton, East Sussex. Funnily enough, there's a row of houses in the same pink that looks absolutely horrible in Clifton, Nottinghamshire. I guess it's the difference between Edwardian frontages and 40's-50's urban semi.

Book: You're hitting this thing with a fork: there is nothing to prevent you, either technically or legally, from xeroxing the entire book. You would fall foul of copyright if you then gave away or sold those copies. The original purchased copy is otherwise yours to do with as you please - you can read or you can use it to wipe your arse.

In England, the maxim of "First Sale" applies to all things, in which any item - whether practical, decorative, or literary in nature - has fixed intrinsic value to the buyer whose ownership of that finite object ends the SECOND he sells it or otherwise disposes of it, and its new owner is the recipient - the buyer or the trash collector. Particularly concerning non-fiction, technical or similar books, the First Sale Doctrine grants the limited right of distribution to any person who buys a book to that one copy. There is ample precedent on this.

Re: That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly what copyrights are about, saying who does own the intellectual property of the book. You merely own an object, unless you purchase ownership of the contents. Or until it hits the public domain.

The owner of the physical copy is unlikely to survive long enough to see the contents enter the public domain.

When Mickey Mouse hits 100, you can bet the copyright laws will be changing to 200 years.

Re:That's because

[tlhIngan]

However, the answer is likely that it was an easy way to unlock phones sold in the N. American market. Every time Apple releases a new phone, a bunch are bought up on the west coast by people who jailbreak them, unlock them, and then sell them in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China. This likely accounts for both the large number of jailbroken devices and for the decline, as a larger and larger number of legit devices are sold directly into the Chinese market.

Don't confuse North America with the US.

iPhones sold by Apple in Canada without a contract come SIM unlocked by default. If I wanted to wait, I could've had an unlocked iPhone 6 (or 6+) on launch day.

And other places often sell unlocked iPhones.

Plus, on launch day, there are NO jailbreaks for new devices. So unlocking them is basically impossible via the jailbreak route.

And the incidence of jailbreaking in Asia is going down, as it turns out by jailbreaking, you're getting your phone infected with all sorts of spyware. There already are a bunch of iOS spyware that infects jailbroken devices only because they require circumventing the iOS security system in order to function. They can't infect a non-jailbroken phone.

So the only reason for jailbreaking in Asia is to engage in what they consider their basic right - to pirate. I mean, the latest installs of the jailbreaking tools for the past few iOS revisions install some Chinese pirated app store.

Of course, elsewhere on the Internet, the other way to do pirated app installs is to use a re-signer service that uses the enterprise certificate to sign cracked apps so they install on unjailbroken phone. It probably explains why the iOS section of most sites is gathering dust, while the Android section is healthy and growing with dozens of new pirated apps posted daily.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

He said no such thing. Someone tried to cite widespread jailbreaking of iphones in asia as proof that people want the freedom to tinker with their devices. He just pointed out, correctly, that the only reason why jailbreaking is so common in Asia is widespread app piracy. Please note how that invalidates the first argument (except in the pedantic missing-the-point sense that, yes, Asians do value the freedom to pirate apps) but doesn't say anything about whether software freedom or "government control" of your devices is good or bad. As an aside, how did the government even get in this discussion, they have nothing to do with this other than the DMCA, which doesn't tell companies to make their products locked-down or not. You seriously sound like an RMS broken record.

Re:That's because

[Richard_at_work]

ooh, car analogy. OK, we'll start with that:

In England, there is no law REQUIRING you to WEAR a seatbelt. There is a law REQUIRING front dual airbags, and belts to be fitted on all seats and that all safety devices are BSI certified. That is where the analogy ends. Fucking with vehicle safety devices falls under "criminal negligence" and can get you sent to jail. Fucking with your phone's firmware isn't likely to kill anyone.

Are you referring to England UK? Then you are wrong - the Transport Bill was amended in 1981 to require all drivers and passengers in the front of a vehicle fitted with seatbelts to wear them. This became a permanent legal requirement in 1986, extended to rear seat belts for children in 1989 and then further extended to all rear passengers in 1991.

Currently there is a £500 fine if you are caught in a moving vehicle without your seatbelt. It is illegal to remove seatbelts from a vehicle that was sold with them installed. The driver is responsible for all passengers wearing their seatbelt unless they are over the age of 14, and then the passenger becomes liable for any fines.

https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-...

Re: That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

all hail to nsa and dollarsoft. bootlicker

Re:That's because

[grouchomarxist]

Also, China != Asia.

Re:That's because

[Snospar]

There definitely is a law in England requiring you to wear a seat belt: "You must wear a seat belt if one is fitted in the seat you’re using - there are only a few exceptions"

Re:That's because

[AmiMoJo]

Actually one of the main reasons people in east Asia jailbroke their iDevices was to install alternate keyboards or change the baseband firmware. The Apple Chinese keyboard was pretty awful for a long time, and until recently couldn't be changed without jailbreaking. The baseband firmware controls the phone's radios and because people were having to import phones from overseas or simply wanted to work around bugs in updates they sometimes changed it.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

On PCs everyone just pirates everything

I would disagree with you there. Yes, piracy is easier and more common on PC platforms, but that's not to say everybody does it. I personally don't pirate anything anymore. Admittedly, I used to back when I had little money, and most games were becoming riddled with restrictive DRM which often stopped me from playing a game I'd just bought for £30+, but now it's much more convenient to buy; with DRM/hassle free services like Steam, GOG, and Humble Bundle. Even friends I have who do pirate things here and there buy far more games on the PC than they do for consoles, mainly because games for consoles are so damn overpriced.

(anon because I've been modding in this thread)

Re:That's because

[Viol8]

" do not have a spare phone to revert to should I break the current one. "

So buy one then.

Anyway, if you need your phone for ALL of your work you really should get a better job since you're obviously tied to the office 24/7/365.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

>It's not that people are dumb

Yes, they are.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

Well

a) You still CAN do it. The car doesn't fail to start if the belt isn't done up.
b) There are exceptions and, since the act requires USING the seatbelt, availing yourself of those exceptions merely require you don't use the seatbelt in those circumstances. You don't have to break another law to make use of those exceptions unlike, for example, fair use/dealing with an Apple product.

Re:That's because

[Alioth]

And this is why such services actually exist. For example, in the nearest town (pop. ~30,000) there are two shops that will do repairs on things like iPhones/Android phones (the usual stuff - repairing broken screens, replacing dead batteries, removing the SIM lock from any locked phones, replacing home buttons that have stopped working and the usual other wear-and-tear failures that smartphones suffer over time).

Re:That's because

[tlhIngan]

That's because only a vanishingly small percentage of the population really cares about hacking on their devices. I know this is heresy here on Slashdot, but it's true. 99+% of the population simply don't give a shit whether or not they can build their own applications for the device.

Why?

Because 99+% of the population does not have the necessary time, skill, and interest to do so. It's not that people are dumb - it's that they just don't care about replacing the existing software that lets them do all the things they want to do with their devices.

More correctly, the computer is no longer an object of interaction but now a tool of modern life. In other words, people don't "use the computer" anymore. They "online shop/bank" or "research" and stuff like that. The computer has gone from something people "did stuff on" to something people "use to do stuff".

And it's something that has embedded itself into modern life so deeply, there is choice but to use a computer.

Back when we were playing video games and futzing with EMS and EMM and XMS and other settings for the fun of it, life was such that you didn't need a computer for most things. Or they had easily avoided alternatives.

Nowadays, modern life demands you use a computer - you can't get away from it.

That's both a good and bad thing. It's good in that computers really fundamentally changed the way people interact.

But the bad thing is that groups like the FSF have lost power because what was once an elite group of narrow users who used and understood the computer is now expanded into the public who pretty much are forced to use a computer. Instead of an environment where users were competent and can administer their own systems, we've incorporated the general public into the group.

And just like other technologies that had mass market acceptance, like the car, it turns that technology from a means unto itself into a tool that people use. The car, the telephone (remember phone phreaking?), computers. They're just tools used to help us accomplish a goal, and basically should do enough to protect us from ourselves (e.g., safety features in cars, anti malware tools, etc) so the majority can go about their day and doing stuff those tools accomplish (going from point A to point B, banking, etc).

It's a fundamental change that has happened in the past couple of decades. Sure, there will always be the hard core who love their tools and will tweak them to the envelope and beyond, but the majority just want their tools to be transparent and get out of the way, and to not bother them as much as possible.

If you could give the user a different tool that does things they want to do without as many hassles, they'll pick it. Hence the rise of smartphones, tablets, and internet streaming devices - why watch Netflix on a computer monitor when those things let you do it on the go, or on the nice big livingroom TV.

Re:That's because

[TWX]

I never said anything about needing my phone for work 100% of the time.

Re: That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

In your copy of your book you can make notes in the margin, cross out lines, scrawl obscenities,tear out pages or just burn it. The same should apply to hardware or software you own. You can change your copy to suit yourself but not copy and market someone else's work to profit by it as your own.

Re:That's because

[farble1670]

i didn't advocate anything. i said the main reason people jailbreak their phones, especially in asia, is to install software they'd otherwise need to pay for. i'm not making any judgement about piracy or jailbreaking.

are you going to tell me to fuck off now? i'll feel a little empty inside if you don't.

Re:That's because

[Viol8]

In that case you *seriously* need to get a life.

Re:That's because

[kesuki]

you can't have inspiration without pirat(e)

3rd AC comment is golden

[rmdingler]

We talk about the backdoor installations the government's pet TLAs request in exported electronics.

We assume the information gatherers track us at every chance, often with our tacit permission.

No longer bordering on tinhattery, there exists the very real possibility everything you purchase in the electronics section might report your doings for fun and profit. If you can break the phone, why wouldn't you?

Re:3rd AC comment is golden

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you know if you successfully rooted your phone and replaced the system? Might look like you did... How's that for a tin-hat?

Re:3rd AC comment is golden

[ihtoit]

I know I rooted my V3, because before it wouldn't even boot... after I flashed it, the thing came up with a spanking new interface (Motorola default rather than the Vodafone OEM theme) and it has worked perfectly ever since.

Re:3rd AC comment is golden

[rmdingler]

How would you know if you successfully rooted your phone and replaced the system? Might look like you did... How's that for a tin-hat?

Yo dawg! We heard you like tricks. So we put a trick your trick...

Re:3rd AC comment is golden

[Em Adespoton]

...and so you've effectively replaced one call-home firmware with another unverified firmware that could be calling home to multiple agencies, neither of which have anything to do with all the other non-firmware tracking going on in the device.

And THEN you start installing apps....

Re:3rd AC comment is golden

[ihtoit]

no, I replaced a firmware that wasn't working - period - with another that thankfully allowed me to use the handset for its intended purpose: an IMEI-tagged receiver handset with a subscriber number contained on a card with which I was then able to make and receive telephone calls. Whether it "calls home" or not on the new firmware is neither issue nor concern for me, as I don't take it out when I leave the house and I don't discuss sensitive issues over the phone to anyone. That's not paranoia, that's operational security training.

Re:3rd AC comment is golden

[swillden]

But the context of this conversation is taking control of your phone to prevent it being used to spy on you, and you haven't done that.

Whether it "calls home" or not on the new firmware is neither issue nor concern for me, as I don't take it out when I leave the house and I don't discuss sensitive issues over the phone to anyone.

You never take your mobile phone out of the house? Why use a mobile at all, then?

Re:3rd AC comment is golden

[ihtoit]

it's prepay. No line rental.

Re:3rd AC comment is golden

[Em Adespoton]

A few things here:
1) you talk about operational security, but then mention that the only reason you re-flashed was that it wouldn't boot. Did you BUY it unbootable (indicating that it was likely stolen and killed), or did it die on you (indicating that you were running the previous firmware for some amount of time prior to reflashing)? Either way doesn't sound like good security.
2) Prepay on flashed firmware on a non-mobile phone is definitely the way to go. However, some firmware also enables a remote "listen-in" mode -- have you done anything to verify that this is not the case here?

My point was that while you think you rooted the phone and replaced the firmware (but not all the other components), you replaced the firmware with another untrusted firmware. And this says nothing about whether you can trust all the other components (which you can't). So you haven't really added anything here that contradicts the original AC's point, being that you can never really trust your phone, no matter what you attempt to do to it.

Re:3rd AC comment is golden

[ihtoit]

1. no. I bought it functional, boxed and with a second-user warranty and with the Vodafone firmware on it. The error developed a couple years after the statutory warranty expired.
2. like I said, I don't tend to say anything remotely controversial on the phone, so that's not an issue for me (also to answer the latter part of (1)).

I flashed the firmware with the sole intention of not having to go out and buy another handset because as I saw it, I had a problem that was potentially (and in fact turned out to be actually) solvable.

I hack everything I own

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for that reason, it's mine. Router, PC, cars, TVs, anything spyware or DRM gets wiped.

"Ownership" isn't about hacking your device

[ciaran2014]

> only a vanishingly small percentage of the population really cares about hacking on their devices.

I don't hack the software on my laptop, but it's all free software and I know it's written by people who aren't trying to spy on me or to give me inconveniences so that I'll buy some premium version.

If you have Window, then MS has owned your PC.

If you have free software, then you "own" it.

Re:"Ownership" isn't about hacking your device

[Anonymous Coward]

but it's all free software and I know it's written by people who aren't trying to spy on me

How do you know that? Because RMS tells you so?

Re:"Ownership" isn't about hacking your device

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't make any sense. If you are connected to the internet then anybody could "own" your PC as free software is not invulnerable to security flaws, and as we have seen before even PC hardware has even been intercepted in transit and been tampered with for spying purposes. If you have free software the only thing you own is a less restrictive license to the software running on your PC. Do not damage the reputation of FOSS by purporting it to be some silver bullet in the prevention of spying.

Re:"Ownership" isn't about hacking your device

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: free software: You don't "own" it if someone can still tell you what to do with your changes to it.

Re:"Ownership" isn't about hacking your device

[kuzb]

This idea that running Linux makes you invulnerable to intrusion and spying is a stupid and dangerous way to think about security.

Linux machines get hacked all the time because people like you think just running a particular OS is enough.

Re:"Ownership" isn't about hacking your device

[jones_supa]

Exactly. The code has to be fully audited until we can know for sure. Also, if using a compiled app, we have to verify that the binary we are using is actually built from that source.

It's very dangerous to write it all off by saying that it's good because it's "free software" or "open source". The attackers will eventually learn that simply by using those labels to deliver software is a good way to get unsuspecting nerds to blindly install all sorts of shit.

Re:"Ownership" isn't about hacking your device

[Anonymous Coward]

He was talking about the device. You truly own it if you can replace all the software on it.

> You don't "own" it if someone can still tell you what to do with your changes to it

Well then! It's a good thing there's GPL to guarantee that you can run it for any purpose you want, and make any changes you want for your own use...

Distributing someone else's work is a different story. You don't get to choose the terms of distribution on other people's code.

Re:"Ownership" isn't about hacking your device

[Anonymous Coward]

> This idea that running Linux makes you invulnerable to intrusion and spying is a stupid and dangerous way to think about security.

GP said nothing of the sort. Idiot.

You are more Free than they let on

[SuperKendall]

Out of the box, the devices are not "Free" in the sense you can modify them directly.

But you ARE legally able to Free any device. Jailbreaking was explicitly declared legal to do, and indeed plenty of people do so.

As long as you are legally able to Free a device, I think we are OK - I don't see the need to force a device to be inherently insecure for millions so thousands of people can expend no effort to modify how a device works.

I still donate to the FSF (and begrudgingly the EFF) every year because I think it's good someone is keeping an eye on all this and striving to make things that are wholly Free. But I just don't see where it's realistic or even a good idea to hold every product to that standard.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[ihtoit]

care to give an example of where it's not a good idea to jailbreak something you OWN to get full use out of it?

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[starless]

care to give an example of where it's not a good idea to jailbreak something you OWN to get full use out of it?

Letting your dog roam free on the streets rather being in the "jail" of your back yard??

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[Microlith]

But you ARE legally able to Free any device. Jailbreaking was explicitly declared legal to do, and indeed plenty of people do so.

Except on tablets, where it's still illegal. And Apple will be right behind you to close that hole and petition the Library of Congress to make jailbreaking of your handset illegal.

But you ARE legally able to Free any device. Jailbreaking was explicitly declared legal to do, and indeed plenty of people do so.

Devices do not need to be inherently insecure, they should be secure by default. But said security needs to put the keys in the hands of the user, which so few modern devices do. So if you turn off the security or break it, you can't effectively re-secure it on your terms.

just don't see where it's realistic or even a good idea to hold every product to that standard.

Is it realistic to hold every device to a standard that, if they're online, they're secure? Then it should also be reasonable for the user to be able to make decisions about that security, even if that decision is "leave it as-is."

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[SuperKendall]

Except on tablets, where it's still illegal.

The rationale given applied to games on consoles, not tablets. Tablets are still a grey area and you can't point to a single person who had action taken against them... if anything were tried at this point they would fall undertake same ruling.

Besides, anyone jailbreaking is probably downloading torrents already, so why does legality matter again? People smart enough to jailbreak are also smart enough to manage that risk.

But said security needs to put the keys in the hands of the user

Metaphorically speaking that is always true of a device you have physical control of.

Is it realistic to hold every device to a standard that, if they're online, they're secure?

No, but it's not a good idea to abandon all efforts either.

Then it should also be reasonable for the user to be able to make decisions about that security

The state in many cases says choices should not be made by those not capable of making them. Similarly I am fine with device makers adding enough security so someone skilled enough to deal with the repercussions of removing them can do whatever they like, which is the world we live in today.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[phantomfive]

Why begrudgingly to the EFF?

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[caseih]

Except that being "legal" isn't enough. iPhones are only able to be freed with a jailbreak because of Apple's bugs that are exploitable to gain root access. This is ridiculous and it's the reason I haven't bought any Apple device in many years. Buying an iPhone to jailbreak is kind of like buying an appliance knowing (and hoping) it has some kind of structural flaw (a chipped corner perhaps, or maybe missing screws) so that one get to device's innards. Except in physical machines I can always open them if I try hard enough. Digital is not the same way. Thus, in order to have true freedom, we need to not only make jailbreaking legal, but also require companies to give you the owner root access if you request it.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you need to jailbreak your device? So you can pirate people's apps? The "legitimate" reasons to jailbreak a device are beyond flimsy.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Touche

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[Microlith]

Tablets are still a grey area and you can't point to a single person who had action taken against them... if anything were tried at this point they would fall undertake same ruling.

Due to the way the DMCA is written, jailbreaking is presumed illegal unless the LoC gives an exemption. An exemption was explicitly requested for tablets and was denied via tortured logic. Consoles were covered too. Phones were retained, but cellphone unlocking was covered under the tortured legalese as well, and made illegal (thus the Congressional rush to make it legal.)

anyone jailbreaking is probably downloading torrents already, so why does legality matter again?

Because it shouldn't be a federal crime to use your device as you see fit, regardless of whether they'll actually prosecute. This notion that people using their devices freely is somehow inherently associated with criminality is part of a shitty, insulting mindset.

Metaphorically speaking that is always true of a device you have physical control of.

Yes, metaphorically speaking. Practically speaking, they're making a pretty direct statement that you are not in control, they are.

The state in many cases says choices should not be made by those not capable of making them.

Holy shit, when they do this it's due to mental impairment, not lack of education!

Similarly I am fine with device makers adding enough security so someone skilled enough to deal with the repercussions of removing them can do whatever they like, which is the world we live in today.

Except this isn't similar! The device vendor arbitrarily declares themselves the authority and fight against you to enforce it. And no amount of competency or education will convince them to give you control - they have reserved it for themselves.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[Anonymous Coward]

Lookie, it's one of those "the only reason you want freedom is to commit crimes" types.

Have you reported to your jail cell yet, Consumer?

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your confusing things. To jailbreak is not to gain control over ones device. Your still prevented from making changes to the proprietary components within. It's hard to explain the difference, but essentially, your now able to run applications on the device, but still can't change the core features of the device. For example I can install applications on the device, but I still can't turn the device into an access point where many people can connect because the wifi chip is dependent on a proprietary component for which I can't change the code to enable it.

I think what people miss is that without the source code being free end-user control diminishes because users have fewer options. For example when the sources are available some developers will decide that its not in the communities best interest to have every users data sent back to the corporation which developed it. So they'll remove that "feature". If the code wasn't available the user couldn't choose to run this privacy friendly community version of the software. You don't need access to the code to jail break a device, but jail breaking a device, doesn't enable you to secure your privacy. For that you need access to the code.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[caseih]

Not having root access to my device is not legitimate? Are you serious? How can you think that is appropriate? Perhaps you are an app developer who's been burned. If so, I'm sorry. But two wrongs don't make a right. You're right to make money on your own proprietary app is legitimate. But so is my right to have full control of my own devices. If those come into conflict (I don't think they do), then it can be resolved with existing laws. To justify removing users's freedoms to preserve your income stream is a bit shaky. That is if you are a disgruntled app developer.

In any case, what if I want to develop my own homebrew apps using whatever tools I want or come up with, other than Xcode? Or access the raw hardware sensors directly and do cool things outside the Apple-defined garden? Or the ability for others to do this and for me to be able to run their cool stuff on my phone, tablet, or other device. Or the ability to replace the system software completely?

Right now in the RC toy world companies from China are shaking up the transmitter market by introducing low-cost transmitters that are completely open and hackable. Homebrew firmwares are very popular and do amazing things that the incumbent companies only offer on their most expensive radios. It's a beautiful mix of open hardware and open software. Niche market sure but it illustrates what can happen.

And Android does have some of this going for it, but most phones are, like Apple's phones, rather locked down and must be cracked open, sadly. Though google never tried to make that very difficult thank goodness. Still annoying, but less so than on iPhone, especially with sanctioned, boot-unlockable phones out there, such as the Nexus 5.

In the end it just comes down to personal freedom with my devices. On Android, thanks to root access, I have a number of utilities I use on a regular basis such as an ssh daemon that can give me full access to the file system (good for tweaking obscure settings, performing legitimate backups, etc). Titanium Backup is the killer app for rooted Android phones I think, though I confess Google made it less necessary for most users by syncing apps and data to the cloud (privacy!).

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you need to jailbreak your device?

Because I own the device I fucking paid for and i don't feel that I the need to provide any other reason.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but it's not worth bringing back all the horrible "Windows Problems" that the iOS mobile ecosystem solved. If a few hobbyist "makers" get butthurt about it, too fucking bad. It's not worth making the other 100 million people with phones subject to viruses, malware, instability, battery gobblers and privacy leeches, all so a handful of people can do some tacky hacking. Get a fucking Raspberry Pi, bro.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[exomondo]

Except on tablets, where it's still illegal.

Does it really matter? I mean Free Software doesn't want proprietary developers standing on their shoulders so they have the GPL to force their position, proprietary product developers don't want Free Software leveraging all the work they have done creating their hardware platform so they lock it down.

If we want Free Software on these kinds of products then the Free Software movement is going to have to address the fact that there is no platform on which to run. Proprietary product companies went out and developed or licensed their own platforms so the Free Software movement needs to do the same.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC, since I'm moderating

One good reason to jailbreak is if you want to upgrade to the latest version of Android. Like you're stuck on Gingerbread, and wanna try out Kitkat or Lollypop. The carrier or the manufacturer may not have it ready, but if you jailbreak, you can get one up on them by getting the most out of your phone/tablet.

Assuming you know what you're doing, of course!

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you need to jailbreak your device?

Because I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, freedom of choice.

I'm the kind if guy who would sit in the greasy spoon and think "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the big rack of Barbecued spare ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I *want* high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese alright? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinatti in a non-smoking section. I wanna run around naked with green jell-o all over my body reading a Playboy magazine. Why? Because maybe I feel the need to, okay pal?

I've *seen* the future, you know what it is? It's made by a 47-year-old virgin in gray pajamas soaking in a bubble bath, drinking a broccoli milkshake and thinking "I'm an Oscar-Meyer Wiener."

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[SuperKendall]

Your still prevented from making changes to the proprietary components within.

I don't see how that follows. You can always open up the device and replace components if you really wanted to; it's just very hard.

It also makes no sense to me to frame Freedom in the context of hardware used to build a device. I can't turn my car into a hot air balloon either but it's not realistic for anyone to ship a car with a giant gas fabric bag in case anyone may want to.

Freedom is being able to do what you want, with the hardware that you have. That's all possible with jailbreaking (even to the level that in the past people ere changing firmware in the device radios).

I still can't turn the device into an access point where many people can connect

(iPhone specific) why not when it can already offer tethering?

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[SuperKendall]

Because they are prone to wild goose chases that are a horrific waste of funds.

They still do some good work though and since there's no-one else doing quite what they do, I keep donating and holding my nose.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[phantomfive]

True point

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a fucking Raspberry Pi, bro.

Which model to you suggest that will both fit in my pocket, and work with my carrier?

Re: You are more Free than they let on

[Anonymous Coward]

in sparta a torturer waits for you bootlicker

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[Anonymous Coward]

You fancy yourself a "maker", go make one.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[nmr_andrew]

Why do you need to jailbreak your device? The "legitimate" reasons to jailbreak a device are beyond flimsy.

Seriously? I probably shouldn't respond to an AC troll...

I'll more than likely end up rooting my kid's tablet (more than likely using towelroot, seems easy enough). The main reason I haven't is that I'll catch all sorts of hell if I lose the saved states on several apps. There are two main reasons, no piracy involved:

1. I can't currently update any apps. My google-fu suggests there are duplicate files that need to be deleted, and neither I nor the installer have permissions to do so. (OT rant: WTF is up with Android throwing an "insufficient space on device" error for pretty much any problem?)

2. If I want to leave a couple hundred MB for overhead, the internal storage doesn't have much space left. Google decided that Jelly Bean can't store apps to a uSD card by default (why?), and changing that requires root.

The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

While many of the FSF goals are laudable, the real world has intervened.

There are people out there who just want to cause trouble, mischief, or otherwise harm others and the easiest way for the masses to protect themselves from this threat is to use a walled garden like Apple has built. The masses have spoken, and after weighing the costs of the walled garden (censorship etc) vs the benefits (no viruses), the masses have opted for safety with the added benefit of stores with trained staff to help them with any troubles they do run into.

Furthermore, the FSF shot themselves in the feet with the reactionary GPLv3 and their refusal to allow gcc be useful for third party applications (open source or otherwise).

If Apple could have continued using gcc, then it is likely LLVM/clang would never have had the success that it has.

If FSF had left things alone and stayed with the GPLv2, then corporations wouldn't have run away from any GPLv3 software, with the developer community following.

IF the FSF was truly concerned about the hardware issue, then they should have gone into the hardware business instead of trying to control it via the GPL. The only way to ensure open hardware is to make it yourself, because as the GPLv3 has demonstrated when you try to control with a software license then the hardware companies suddenly find the money to invest in alternative software instead of going the easy route of using your GPL'd software.

But then again this is the type of behavior that brought you the attempt to take over the Linux kernel by renaming GNU/Linux when they were incapable of writing their own kernel.

Re:The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an iphone but an android tablet. The Google Play store is like playing Russian roulette anytime you need an app. Freedom may not be free, but being a cheap ass isn't free either, and I'd rather just buy one app out of iTunes and have it not be malware than buy a bunch of different Android apps made by Russian scumbags before I find one that isn't a scam.

Re:The FSF has failed

[bug1]

The masses have spoken, and after weighing the costs of the walled garden (censorship etc) vs the benefits (no viruses), the masses have opted for safety with the added benefit of stores with trained staff to help them with any troubles they do run into.

People want independently QA'ed software, which is one of the roles Linux distributions provide.

If Apple could have continued using gcc, then it is likely LLVM/clang would never have had the success that it has.

LLVM/Clang is not a failure for the FSF, its a success for Apple.

There needs to be a copyleft licence that restricts distribution on the same medium as non-free software, without it we will lose the IoT as well.

Re:The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

Restrictive open source licenses in general prevent collaboration with people who do not share that ideology, that is silly and intolerant. In fact that FSF intolerance is the very reason that Linux is staying GPLv2 rather than GPLv3, because Tivoization is good, it is about code contribution, not freedom. That is also the reason the GCC is being supplanted by Clang/LLVM because of the refusal to allow co-operation with potentially non-free software. Yet they know they cannot actually stand by their ideals steadfastly because if they did they would add a clause in the license to prevent the GCC from being used to build proprietary software but they know they would lose everything immediately if they did that.

Permissive open source licenses allow people to choose who they collaborate with and how much, that is how we have gotten wonderful software like Clang/LLVM, Webkit, Apache, etc. Yes there is a lot of hum drum and "slippery slope" conspiracy theories used in an attempt to support intolerant restrictive licensing but ultimately in this day and age that is rubbish, the intolerance is why restrictive free software is dying, even it's darling project Linux denounces the FSF's goals, it uses the GPLv2 out of convenience for "tit-for-tat" contributions only, not to further the FSF's goals.

Linux is not an FSF or GNU project, Hurd is a Turd and now the FSF is losing its one real claim to fame (the GCC) to permissively-licensed Clang/LLVM! The problem is the FSF did a bunch of work long ago to create some good software, that is now being supplanted and we are seeing that in the meantime they have been just religious advocates for their ideology rather than actually producing good software based on that ideology.

Re:The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

>There needs to be a copyleft licence that restricts distribution on the same medium as non-free software

In a way, Apple has already done this for you, as GPL software is banned from the app store. How do you like that?

Re:The FSF has failed

[bug1]

Apple has already done this for you, as GPL software is banned from the app store. How do you like that?

There is no value in trying to create a Free softwarte layer on top of a non-free platorm.

It would be deceptive if Apple where to allow GPL'ed software and give people only the illusion of freedom. Apple will never willingly give owners control of the hardware, so it is how it has to be.

Re:The FSF has failed

[bug1]

Permissive open source licenses allow people to choose who they collaborate with and how much

Permissive open source licences allow freeloaders to choose if they should their modifications with the non-freeloaders who have already chosen to share with them.

Which is why the BSDs have had only limited success compared to GNU/Linux.

Re:The FSF has failed

[UnknownSoldier]

> [FSF] refusal to allow gcc be useful for third party applications (open source or otherwise).

[Citation] ?

Re:The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

Permissive open source licences allow freeloaders to choose if they should their modifications with the non-freeloaders who have already chosen to share with them.

They do allow that but that in most cases it simply doesn't happen and it doesn't harm the original project. It's about altruism, not about forcing the hand of somebody else to do what you want them to do.

Which is why the BSDs have had only limited success compared to GNU/Linux.

No because even the most prominent commercial BSD-derived operating system has its core components still open sourced, all those bits Darwin took from BSD have been improved upon and re-released as open source.

Re:The FSF has failed

[phantomfive]

The FSF has failed

Have you used Linux? Did you submit your comment to a server running Linux? That's because the FSF didn't fail.

Re:The FSF has failed

[i.r.id10t]

There needs to be a copyleft licence that restricts distribution on the same medium as non-free software, without it we will lose the IoT as well.

That point is addressed in the Free Software Definition and any license containing said clause would not be considered Free.

Re:The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you used Linux? Did you submit your comment to a server running Linux? That's because the FSF didn't fail.

Oh whoopdee do! Linux happens to exploit the GPL v2 in order to get "tit-for-tat" contributions, that is all and that is why Linus likes Tivoization because its not about freedom its about code contributions. The FSF and RMS continue to hang their hopes and dreams on Linux and lay claim to its success simply because it uses an early revision of their license.

The darling project of the FSF is one who's project founder and leader doesn't stand for the ideals of free software, despises the "black and white" view of RMS and the FSF and actively promotes the "anti-freedom" Tivoization...and yet free software advocates stick their heads in the sand on this because without Linux there would be little left.

Re:The FSF has failed

[exomondo]

I'm guessing what he is referring to is the ongoing debate developers are having with Stallman over accessibility to GCC's abstract syntax tree. Many developers want this in order to be able to do auto-complete, refactoring and other IDE options within programs like EMACS but Stallman is concerned that this could lead to that abstract source tree (AST) being used as input to proprietary compiler backends, which he sees as bad.

This is another page in the book of hamstringing GCC and EMACS users in the name of freedom, or rather of trying to prevent a perceived threat from closed-source programs. We have already seen the long debates about plugins for GCC which ultimately ended with it being doable so long as it exports the symbol plugin_is_GPL_compatible and as David Engster already said, a GPL plugin for GCC could already be written to extract the AST if that's what compiler backend authors wanted to do.

Re:The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh whoopdee do! Linux happens to exploit the GPL v2 in order to get "tit-for-tat" contributions, ...

Which is not only a large foundation of what the FSF is about but is primarily the basis for Linux's success over other *BSD kernels--no offense intended to *BSD developers.

... and yet free software advocates stick their heads in the sand on this because without Linux there would be little left.

Because NIH as a basis to bash Linux is certainly nothing you'd hold against the FSF if they went that route.

Honestly, the whole thread started as a very much "black and white" view of things that ignores the FSF was never envisioned with the absurd notion that the whole world would embrace the idea and proprietary software would be abandoned entirely. Instead, it started with the fear of an information dystopia that, at the time was scoffed at, would become an intractable and inescapable (by law) system. So far, we've seen (near?) every fear realized with only the intractable bit being side stepped with Free software and the inescapable (by law) aspect of it likely hamstrung by Free software although likely not wholly responsible for a lack of legal precedent.

In the end, the FSF has won in the critical aspect that people who want Free software have it and can happily use and develop it to their hearts content. That the rest of the world chooses to shoot themselves in the foot, well, that's their business and it always was. One might as well make equally absurd statements about any movement or organization since utopia has not been reached and is often not even the goal.

Re:The FSF has failed

[Marginal Coward]

Permissive open source licences allow freeloaders to choose if they should their modifications with the non-freeloaders who have already chosen to share with them.

Forgive me, but I've never understood what harm freeloaders do by freeloading on people who wanted their software to be "free" in the first place. I suppose you could claim that it's unfair or whatever, but in my own case, if I'm giving something away, I basically want people to take it. Isn't that axiomatic?

Re:The FSF has failed

[bug1]

That point is addressed in the Free Software Definition and any license containing said clause would not be considered Free.

Nothing last forever, the FSF will inovate or die, like everyhting else.

Its rediculous that the FSF is the biggest enabler of proprietary software companies, its sad that the community cant see its mistakes.

Re:The FSF has failed

[Marginal Coward]

I'm guessing what he is referring to is the ongoing debate developers are having with Stallman over accessibility to GCC's abstract syntax tree.

I wonder what the young Richard Stallman who was first alienated by closed-source software at MIT would think of the old Richard Stallman's stance on this? It seems to me that the young idealist would have thought that if a little freedom to use and modify software in any way is good, more freedom would be better.

I honestly haven't been able to reconcile Stallman's stances on various recent issues with his stated philosophy. To me, a lot of what he's stated recently such as the LLVM thing and his insistence on specific terminology like "the GNU/Linux system" seem more like an expression of curmudgeonism and "not invented here" than any sort of quest for freedom. Or, maybe he just likes the attention now that he's no longer writing much code, and now that his newest license has been rejected by so many of his own admirers.

(Moderators please note: I'm not trolling, just stating my honest opinions. YMMV.)

Re:The FSF has failed

[bug1]

Permissive licences dont demand its users or developers behave a certain way, but that doesnt mean they dont wish its users and developers behave a certain way.

Its a greater gift if you give it freely, if you have to ask or demand something its not as special. Making some demands to achieve a greater good is how copyleft sees it.

I do vagually remember on the BSD developers complaing about the lack of financial support, but i guess each case is different.

Re:The FSF has failed

[meta-monkey]

if a little freedom to use and modify software in any way is good, more freedom would be better.

That's where you misunderstand Stallman's philosophy. Modify "in any way" is not necessarily good, and can be used for evil. He wants software that is modified only in ways that require others to be able to modify your modifications. That's the whole point of the GPL, copyleft system. "You can have this software, but when you distribute it in binary form you must provide the source code for it and any derivative works." If he was fine with "in any way" he'd have written the BSD license, where you can do anything you want with the source code from a project except prevent others from using it. BSD users then just hope those who modify their software will contribute back out of the goodness of their hearts, but they could just take it, close it up, give the original devs the bird, and go right on doing what they want.

They mostly don't. And it's easier to get your boss to let you use a BSD project as the basis for your new product because they won't be forced to release their source. And then once the boss sees down the road that it won't hurt their offerings to give back, it'll come around. But sign on to the GPL and there's no changing your mind. It's "viral."

The problem with BSD type licenses is that once you get big enough, and get everybody hooked on your ecosystem, it's much easier to give everybody the bird. That was the issue with GCC. Apple and pals wanted to build closed or less-(Stallmanesque)-free* tools on top of GCC..."oh but we'll also totally contribute to GCC!" Well, sure, but as you build more and more stuff it's going to overwhelm and drown GCC until GCC no longer really exists as a free compiler, but as a happy little open thing supporting a mass of closed-off tools under Apple's control.

This is kind of what Apple did with OS X, which they forked off BSD. At first they made huge contributions to BSD. And using OS X was really a lot like using an open source OS, except for Apple's proprietary stuff on top. You don't except them to open up Safari, or Mail or something. But as more and more pieces are built on top of the OS, they are closed, to the point that now, yes, OS X is "based on BSD" and they contribute to the kernel itself, but the vast bulk of what makes up OS X is closed and proprietary.

The same thing is happening with Google and Android. Aw man, this is great! The Linux kernel is running on like 85% of smartphones and Google is totally contributing stuff back to Linux!** But, only the kernel parts themselves are GPLed. The farther you get up the stack, the more closed it is, and the closure is creeping down. Obviously their apps on top are closed (GMail, Google Play. Chrome is mostly OS released under the Chromium project and based on WebKit). But they're sure not going to be putting out more open top-shelf apps. The libraries were BSD (or similarly) licensed and they've been moving towards more controllable licenses in general, and they can close off whatever they do at any time. Remember, with BSD, there's no requirement to publish your changes. Tomorrow they could say "pfft, closed!" and never release another bit of source for one of the libraries (many contributions to which came from others) and there's no recourse. They just released a new runtime (ART? I think?) I don't know how open that is, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn it's closed.

The MO is basically "embrace, extend, extinguish." A big company takes an open source project, uses it as a launching point to get way ahead in development, and then as they gain market share and people become dependent upon their ecosystem, slowly close it off, replace more and more open source parts of the system with closed parts, until basically it's all closed and under their direction.

Stallman doesn't want to see that happen, and he's not wrong. People whine that "Ugh, Stallman, if you weren't so hard headed we could totally have had Apple's help with GCC!!" Sure. For

Re:The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree.

The FSF has a set of ideals and they stick to them. They don't compromise in the face of convenience, or the ability to make a buck.

In 30 years most people have forgotten just what the computing world used to be like. The things the FSF have created have had more impact on how people use computers today than any other organization. They are the backbone of the free software movement. They brought the likes of Microsoft, Apple, IBM, and the entire (now dead) family of unix giants to heel.

They don't care how you or some company feels about the GPL 3 and they didn't care what the world thought 30 years ago.

That's the burden of being right. You stick to it. You continue on in the face of a thankless world until they all begrudgingly realize the error their ways.. And then you do the next thing that makes them hate you. Over and over and over again.

Re:The FSF has failed

[meta-monkey]

It isn't so much "freeloaders" I worry about with regards to permissive licenses. It's the "embrace, extend, extinguish" model. It's what Google will eventually do with Android. Start all "look at us being all Open Source!" And then they get a big head start using OS libraries and contributions from a community, but once they have enough market share (which they do) slowly start closing it off from the top down. They can't close the kernel (which is the whole point of the GPL and why permissive licenses are a trap), but they can close everything else, one module at a time. Ten years later it's just a closed product running on an OS kernel (which they don't mind as others are doing the bulk of the work on that and doing a great job).

It's like the dark side of the force. "The Jedi? They want power, too, they just want to keep you from using power in ways they don't like..." and it all sounds good until you're slaughtering younglings and shit.

Re: The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yeah apple fud.

Re: The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

too complex thinking. my one mhz z80 computer is more free than your shiny animated,million loc jail.

Re:The FSF has failed

[Marginal Coward]

BSD adherents take issue with Stallman's use of the word "free," as they believe software that you can do whatever you want with, even if it means making it less free later, is more "free," as it comes with fewer restrictions. To me, I think of "free" as a verb, rather than an adjective. Stallman, FSF type of "freedom" is about liberating themselves and others from restrictions, now and in the future. BSD "free" is an adjective, meaning "permissive." You're permitted to do whatever you want, including remove liberty later.

You've just put a nickel in me for one of my favorite gripes about "Free Software" (note the capital letters). If it's really about "freedom" than why isn't it called "Freedom Software" or maybe even "Freed (from shackles) Software". To me, this has always seemed like a classic bait-and-switch. Most users are initially attracted by the free-as-in-beer meaning of "free", then someone explains, "No, it's really about freedom - that's what's really important."

Perhaps Stallman and company could be forgiven for initially choosing a misleading term, but why haven't they made any effort to correct their terminology over the years? Note, in contrast, how vitally important precise and explicit terminology becomes to these folks when they want to receive what they believe to be adequate credit for "the GNU/Linux System". In that case, sloppy terminology like "Linux" simply cannot be tolerated.

If they took a consistent and logical approach to these things, the "Freedom Software Foundation" (my term) would not only be able to communicate their message better, they'd seem a lot more like people who really believed in a cause, rather than people who started something great and then got left behind, and are now wading in a pool of bitterness about that their loss of control over the movement they started which has now outgrown them. To me, their reaction to LLVM is the most telling sign I've seen yet of what's really important to them. It's all about ego.

It's a good thing we have Linus Torvalds and the BSD folks to really popularize open source software and to continually counterbalance idealism with practicality. Just think of all the folks who use Apple products who have benefited from Apple's freedom to meet their needs while simultaneously making a buck - or two. Don't you feel sorry for those all those poor, shackled Apple customers who have no choice but to by one Apple product after another?...

Re: The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha. android would never exist without gcc and curreently kills off everybody else.
that i think is why you apple propas are so mad.

Re: The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

well, rms is correct to point out linux kernel would have never happened wo gcc. so he just demands credit for hard work. which is fair.

Re: The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

gpl software is not banned from the apple app store, it's just that, theoretically, you'd need all copyright holders to agree on putting it there.

Re:The FSF has failed

[bug1]

+1

Re:The FSF has failed

[exomondo]

But Stallman's playing the long game. The cost is too high. Candy today, chains tomorrow.

So why not prevent GCC from being used to produce proprietary software? It seems pretty hypocritical to prevent the export of GCC's abstract source tree due to the fact that it could be used to aid closed-source software when GCC itself is used to produce closed-source software all the time.

Re:The FSF has failed

[meta-monkey]

Perhaps Stallman and company could be forgiven for initially choosing a misleading term, but why haven't they made any effort to correct their terminology over the years?

Ehhhhh no, it was kind of the other way around. Here's a good article about the rebranding of "Open Source" away from "Free Software."

In the Beginning, everybody understood the "free as in beer and free as in speech" thing. To be honest, it's a wonderfully geeky nomenclature. Free has two (primary) meanings, both of which apply to our software! Using that one word saves bandwidth! But geeks are very poor at branding, or expecting other people to understand their precise use of words.

In the late 90s and early 2000s, Tim O'Reilly and pals redefined "free software" to mean what you think of today as "open source." They kept the "free as in beer" (design methodology) bit but jettisoned the "free as in speech" (social movement) bit because all that commie talk doesn't fly when they're trying to make a buck.

The FOSS community is not unaware of this, and has tried to counteract this with the word "libre," meaning "free as in liberty." But the damage is basically done. And besides, they were the Free Software Foundation first. Why should they have to change? They're not the ones who suck.

Note, in contrast, how vitally important precise and explicit terminology becomes to these folks when they want to receive what they believe to be adequate credit for "the GNU/Linux System". In that case, sloppy terminology like "Linux" simply cannot be tolerated.

No, like I said, the initial naming was good. It was Free. Free as in beer, free as in speech. That one word worked perfectly. Again, this is before the words were muddied to appeal to business interests.

They only call it "GNU/Linux" when you're talking about...GNU/Linux. Again, precise definition. You call your system "Linux" but all those commands you're typing, cp, mv, grep, are GNU. Linux is just the kernel. Android, however, is...the Android variant of Linux, and GNU makes no claim on it and doesn't expect you to call it GNU/Android because there's no GNU in it.

To me, their reaction to LLVM is the most telling sign I've seen yet of what's really important to them. It's all about ego.

No, absolutely not. What's really important to them is the principle of copyleft. That no, they will not compromise when it comes to the principles that free (libre) software must stay free (libre). Today candy, tomorrow shackles. In this world where freaking everybody compromises their principles, it's nice to see somebody who says "nope. Nope nope nope. This is what we believe, and we're sticking to it."

Did you read the rest of what I said about "embrace, extend, and extinguish?" Stallman takes the long view. I honestly have no idea what you're going for with the Apple bit. Apple closes their shit off, won't let you install what you want on your device, spies on you, hands that info to the government...they can take their "benefits" and cram them right up the ass of Steve Job's dessicated corpse.

Re:The FSF has failed

[meta-monkey]

How do you propose they prevent GCC from producing propriety software? Probably would if they could, but I don't think there's any legal mechanism that would allow that.

I'm sure there's plenty of case law wherein a toolmaker has tried to claim that use of their tool gives them rights to the things created with that tool, and have been shut down. I am not bound by a license from Canon for pictures I take with my camera, nor do I share authorship with Microsoft for something I write in Word. The toolmaker has no rights over what the tool user does.

So while they can not prevent someone from making proprietary software with GCC, they sure don't have to make it easy on them. I'm willing to bet if you submitted a module that would help enforce some DRM standard (binaries that won't run without a license file, perhaps) they would un-graciously decline to commit that module to the main tree.

Stallman and pals are under no obligation to incorporate everything anybody wants into their project. They can say no for technical reasons, for philosophical reasons (like they did here), because it's Tuesday or for no reason at all.

The only reason for them to commit the changes Apple wanted was to aid their less-free tool endeavors. The reason Apple wants to make open source projects under permissive licenses rather than libre licenses is so they can embrace, extend, extinguish. This is not Stallman's first time at the rodeo. We've seen this before. You "partner" with the open source community to bootstrap your project, get lots of talented development for it, pull talent away from competing projects, and once everybody's dependent on your ecosystem, start closing it off (or replacing) one piece at a time until it's just your monolithic, closed product. Why on earth would you want to help them do that? No, Apple, if you want to contribute to GCC, come work on GDB, under the GPL license, and we're happy to have you.

When the white man shows up on your shore, where nobody owns land, you don't teach him to grown corn and let him carve out "just a little plot..over here...no bother..." in exchange for some baubles. You tell him to take his ass back to England, no matter how pretty the beads are right now. We'll stay savage, thanks, but free.

Re:The FSF has failed

[exomondo]

How do you propose they prevent GCC from producing propriety software?

Make it a term of the license for the software.

I'm sure there's plenty of case law wherein a toolmaker has tried to claim that use of their tool gives them rights to the things created with that tool, and have been shut down.

Right, but this isn't about giving the GCC authors the rights to the programs created with GCC.

Re:The FSF has failed

[meta-monkey]

I'm pretty sure that has been tried (by others) and did not hold up in court.

If he could, believe me, Stallman would.

You called Stallman a hypocrite, and love him or hate him...I can't think of anyone on the planet who is less deserving of that title. He is blindingly, crippling consistent.

Re:The FSF has failed

[exomondo]

I'm pretty sure that has been tried (by others) and did not hold up in court.

I don't see any reason it couldn't - if you have examples though that your assertion is based on I'd be interested to see because I can't find anything - you can specify license constraints on linkage so certainly there is nothing to stop restrictions being placed on the license of the input to GCC.

If he could, believe me, Stallman would.

I don't think he would, that would kill GCC.

Re:The FSF has failed

[Marginal Coward]

You've somehow managed to simultaneously misunderstand and illustrate my point. My point was not that the GNU sense of "free software" does not pre-date "open source". My point is that the term itself is either confusing (to be charitable) or deliberately misleading (to be cynical).

In the Beginning, everybody understood the "free as in beer and free as in speech" thing.

I'm not sure who you mean by "everybody", but if you ask 100 people who don't know anything about GNU or its terminology, all 100 will tell you it means something like "software you don't have to pay for."

The fact that "free software" needs so much explaining, e.g. "free as in beer", "libre software", etc., illustrates what a confusing and/or misleading term it is. In comparison, "open source" needs very little explaining, and I don't even know of any alternative term for the concept that's clearer than the one the OSF has chosen for that.

Both the FSF and the OSF use their primary terms more-or-less as trademarks. In effect, the FSF wants you to believe that "free software" means whatever they say it means, which is basically software that's provided under a license they have created or approved. This is analogous to the fact that "Coca Cola" means whatever the Coca Cola Company says it means. The difference, though, is that "Coca Cola" is a valid trademark in the sense that it doesn't appear to mean something other than what they say it means. In contrast "free software" in the FSF sense could be software that you end up paying for! In fact, there's a whole industry built around the concept of charging for "free" software. Go figure. Oh, I forgot, it's really about "freedom".

So why not somehow just build that right into the term? Suppose the original term chosen by Stallman had been "Libre Software (tm)". I would have no problem whatsoever with that. Neither I nor the rest of the public would confuse that for free-of-cost software. We would never think that the main idea of it is that you don't have to pay for it. It also enough of a coined term that they might even be able to trademark it. (Stallman and Eben Moglen seem to just love to do jujitsu on intellectual property law, so I'm surprised they haven't trademarked anything like that yet.)

I don't speak Latin (except the pig kind), but if I wanted to know what "libre software" was supposed to be, I could research "libre", and it might make at least a little sense. Then again, free (as in "freedom") software wouldn't hold nearly as much initial attraction for me as free (as in "free of charge") software because I've never felt particularly enslaved by software. In fact, of all the things we have to worry about, software slavery ranks pretty far down on my personal list.

You've really got to hand it to Stallman for finding a new problem for us all to worry about so he could be in charge of solving the problem we didn't previously even know existed. Or, as the old saying goes, "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." It's a wonderful way to get famous and become important.

Re: The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

too complex thinking. my one mhz z80 computer is more free than your shiny animated,million loc jail.

When you call it a "jail" you just demonstrate bias, you see people are willing to accept that certain freedoms wont be granted to them all the time in every circumstance, it is hardly a "jail" when I am in no way confined to it or trapped within it.

I can write you a free "hello world" program and you would love it purely because it is free while other people would go out an create really incredible things with non-free tools like photoshop or maya because the freedom to modify the program is not something they want or need. But you are the sort of person who gets upset when you leave the house and have to give up the "freedom" to urinate wherever you like.

Re: The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Apple's current offerings wouldnt have existed without gcc! Despite the pontification about freedom the biggest supporter of the most proprietary device maker in history is the FSF!

But gcc has now outlived its usefulness, it has stagnated and even Google has included LLVM as a compiler option for the Android toolchain.

Re:The FSF has failed

[exomondo]

No, like I said, the initial naming was good. It was Free. Free as in beer, free as in speech. That one word worked perfectly.

I think it's terrible since obviously there could be software that was free of charge but not free of restriction so using one word to mean two things was always going to be confusing. Naturally software that was free of charge would be referred to as free software just like anything else that usually has a cost associated with it but is offered free of charge.

In the context of speech "free speech" obviously means free of restriction because speech does not have a cost associated with it. In the context of beer "free beer" obviously means free of charge, everybody knows that you aren't entitled to go to the manufacturer and get the recipe to make it. So the term "free software" could mean free of charge or free of restriction or both.

Re:The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

In the end, the FSF has won in the critical aspect that people who want Free software have it and can happily use and develop it to their hearts content. That the rest of the world chooses to shoot themselves in the foot, well, that's their business and it always was. One might as well make equally absurd statements about any movement or organization since utopia has not been reached and is often not even the goal.

Ultimately it has not gone particularly well, the free desktop is still mostly (at least in practical forms) unusable because while there is a free operating system there really are not enough capable free applications for people to accomplish the tasks they need their computers for. And while the most common personal computing tasks are achievable on the free desktop by the time it became usable those had mostly shifted to smartphones and tablets. On the smartphone and tablet platforms there is a bit of free software (really only the kernel and some bits of the userland) on some platforms sandwiched between proprietary hardware & drivers and a proprietary API (GPS) and proprietary user applications.

These days personal computers (smartphones and tablets) are less free than the personal computers of before thanks to Tivoization (actively supported by the Linux kernel much to the dismay of the FSF), gcc is being abandoned in favor of the superior features and flexibility of Clang, non-copyleft glibc alternatives like bionic are being used and all the in-fighting over systemd is causing rifts within the Linux desktop community. It would be the height of ignorance and stupidity for any proponent of the FSF's ideals to argue that everything is fine and going well, in fact things are going backwards, the FSF needs to innovate or it will die...and indeed it is dying and becoming irrelevant.

The sooner the FSF proponents acknowledge that and do something about it the better but simply ignoring it and pretending it isnt happening is a terrible thing to do and will lead to the end of the FSF.

Failure

[bug1]

We where onto a good thing, but we failed to adapt.

We failed to adapt to the commercial attacks that make closed source software the gatekeeper to software freedom.

We lost the mobile space, Android is full of crap software running on a Free kernel that hardly anyone can use freely.

Free software is free beer that corporations on-sell minus the libre.

Re:Failure

[exomondo]

The dedication to pushing a free desktop is admirable, but it takes a disruptive product to effect real change in an established market. The disruptive aspect of it was supposed to be "freedom" but that wasn't enough. As you highlighted, the new smartphone and tablet categories still don't have entrants from the free software community so in that area it's another case of trying to play catch-up with the only ace up your sleeve being the freedom card.

With these new 'device' categories it is even harder because nobody sells a 'blank' device - a generic platform like the PC on to which you can load any operating system - nor can you easily turn most existing ones into that. Unless an OEM comes along happy to set a platform specification and sell blank platforms (like Raspberry Pi but obviously more easily integratable into small form factors) I don't see much progress here. The only way is to leverage the proprietary vendor platforms and hijack those with some innovative and disruptive alternative.

Re:Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

"Freedom" with regards to software is not a means to an end for most people. It can be useful, it's very appealing for developers and since is generally synonymous with free-as-in-beer is also popular with end-users, but in the end, people don't go for free software simply because it's free. Particularly if the proprietary software does a better job for most people (e.g. MS Office vs LibreOffice, Photoshop vs GIMP, etc). Telling people that proprietary software is "wrong" despite the fact it supports the formats everyone around them is using better than the free software does, will always fall on deaf ears.

Closed source software is still with us and is still extremely prevalent because it will provide people with the functionality they want, desire or need, when free software fails to do so. It's really as simple as that. Software is there to accomplish a job, no?

Re:Failure

[jbolden]

The disruptive aspect of it was supposed to be "freedom"

Actually no. The disruptive aspect was supposed to be price and pace of development. The assumption was that given Microsoft dominant position they would use it to raise prices sharply and grow revenue and margins not focus on almost monopolistic marketshare. In other words do on the desktop something much more similar to what they did on server. And then like server Linux would be a cheaper alternative.

Similar this low price strategy meant they didn't have to stratify. Microsoft's with XP was able to unifying their much more robust commercial OS (Win NT 4.0 / 2000) with their terrible home / small business OS (Win 95, 98, ME). They then were able to advance quickly in areas like programming languages (Visual Basic, C#) and create a robust and friendly development platform. They were more successful with web (IE 3.0, 4.0, 4.5)...

In other words in places where Microsoft could have tripped they didn't. Also there was a tendency to underestimate how far ahead Microsoft was on areas like Office Suites so even with FreeSoftware improving at 150-250% of the speed that Office was the number of years required to catch up and overtake was too high.

___

Freedom was generally seen as a means to achieve collaboration and cooperation. It the server space it did. In the desktop space it did but even with collaboration and cooperation Microsoft still outpaced the FreeSoftware community.

Re:Failure

[exomondo]

Actually no. The disruptive aspect was supposed to be price and pace of development.

I suppose that's a fair assessment, ultimately price didn't matter since OEM licenses for Windows were so cheap that people wouldn't even notice the cost built in to the PC and while there has always been a lot of development going on it hasn't been particularly unified so there is a lot of duplicated effort in order to do a bunch of things in slightly different ways.

Re:Failure

[jbolden]

ultimately price didn't matter since OEM licenses for Windows were so cheap that people wouldn't even notice the cost built in to the PC

Exactly! That was unexpected. The assumption had been that the Windows license would be around $150-300 where there would be some room to compete on price. The fact that Microsoft went even cheaper than their standard pricing for netbooks was just devastating to Linux on the desktop.

always been a lot of development going on it hasn't been particularly unified so there is a lot of duplicated effort in order to do a bunch of things in slightly different ways.

Quite true. The diversity has allowed the Linux community to experiment and bounce back from failures. But it has also been tremendously taxing on a limited developer base.

Re:Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling people that proprietary software is "wrong" despite the fact it supports the formats everyone around them is using better than the free software does, will always fall on deaf ears.

If you could convince people to accept your ideology purely on the basis that it is "right" according to your particular belief system then I would say you could resolve a lot more important issues than software freedom.

This is why free software can only succeed if it is *better* than proprietary software, in fact dont even think of it as "free vs proprietary" just think of it as 2 pieces of software and use the best one because that is what people care about. The free software community should be working to make sure the "best one" is the free one. Otherwise you are trying to convince people to accept an ideology that produces inferior results, nobody wants that.

Take the iPhone for instance, it serves most people's smartphone needs and does so in a very consumer-friendly way. Also law enforcement officials are whining and complaining about the inability to access it because of the on-device encryption (which Google is following suit with). So where exactly is a "free software" smartphone and why would I want/need one?

When you don't know what you are doing

[SuperKendall]

care to give an example of where it's not a good idea to jailbreak something you OWN to get full use out of it?

Someone who jailbreaks a phone and then catches a load of malware would be one example.

A better one would be doing something like altering an ECU in a car and then changing parameters without understanding what you are doing, and blowing an engine...

Don't make me break out the Uncle Ben quote man.

Re:When you don't know what you are doing

[Microlith]

A better one would be doing something like altering an ECU in a car and then changing parameters without understanding what you are doing, and blowing an engine...

And yet there are 3rd party kits to modify the ECUs (or outright replace) of a lot of vehicles.

Of course, doing that would void your warranty if they could show the modified ECU caused the failure, which I am entirely OK with. Vendors should put the keys in your hand, but if you turn that lock you take your fate in your own hands.

Re:When you don't know what you are doing

[SuperKendall]

And yet there are 3rd party kits to modify the ECUs (or outright replace) of a lot of vehicles.

Why the "And yet", of course there are so that you get a kind of fixed upgrade without having to have much expertise. It's further modifications that are possibly a bad idea depending on what you are doing (and even some of the kits may be depending on how good the kit maker was at understanding the implications of the settings they were using ).

There are also instructions on how to jailbreak on YouTube...

Vendors should put the keys in your hand,

Where are you going with this point. Car makers in no way support custom ECUs in the same way phone makers do not support jailbreaking or rooting. It's pretty equivalent to jailbreaking that you have the literal keys because you have physical control of the device.

Re:When you don't know what you are doing

[Microlith]

Car makers in no way support custom ECUs in the same way phone makers do not support jailbreaking or rooting.

Car vendors don't weld the hood shut or put other things into the engine to prevent you from making that modification.

It's pretty equivalent to jailbreaking that you have the literal keys because you have physical control of the device.

Jailbreaking would be akin to having to saw open the hood or find a way to trick the vendor-controlled hood lock to unlatch and let you in. And Ford/GM would be petitioning the Library of Congress to disallow a DMCA exemption.

Re:When you don't know what you are doing

[ihtoit]

One would think that you'd have some idea of a: what you're doing and b: the consequences of what you're attempting not to mention c: the risks involved with what you're doing (thinking the EMU here) before you embark on such ventures. Otherwise it becomes an exercise in stating the bleedin' obvious right here. Don't want to blow your engine? Then don't fuck with the EMU. Don't want to brick your $600 phone? Then don't flash it. Prepared to take the risk? Good luck. On another branch of this conversation, I allude to the times when performing such operations is a necessity, for example when like in my case, a phone develops a fault in its firmware with the only possible fix being a reflash. There's no risk involved because the phone is already bricked, it can only get more functional at that point. Happily for me it worked. If it hadn't I'd've only been down a £500 phone I only paid £35 for.

Re:When you don't know what you are doing

[ihtoit]

car makers don't support custom EMUs because they don't know other people's EMUs and how they interact with their engines, they only know their own EMUs and they're the ones they support. Why should Ford support a Renault unit?

high horses

[Lawrence_Bird]

At the same time, those of us who live and breathe technology do so because it provides us with a service and freedom to share our lives with others.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc all give me the freedom to share my life with others if I so desire.

Re:high horses

[u38cg]

Yes, try exercising the freedom to share your tits on Facebook or Instagram and see how far you get.

Re:high horses

[Anonymous Coward]

My what now?

Re:high horses

[meta-monkey]

Troll harder.

Will vs. can

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not because you will hack on your device (if by hack you mean install any s/w you want without the Mothership's approval) but rather that you can. As in, I may not want to marry someone of my own gender, but it's an important principle that I can.

printers are still a big pain

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS started FSF after he faced troubles with his printer. Printers are still troublesome to deal with. There is no opensource printer (not 3d printers, normal ones).

Till the date that is a non issue, FSF will be in a dark spell :)

A lot better than before

[sayfawa]

The situation isn't ideal, but it's much better than it was before. I have a gaming computer that runs Windows. The rest of my computers (including at my traditonal 9-5 desk job) is Linux. That's undeniable progress.

Re:A lot better than before

[Anonymous Coward]

When I got interested in flight simulators, I decided to run it under Linux, 64bit using Radeon. Everything should work against me, but guess what, 6 screens.. and a number of USB controlls later... it works! But I tell you, it's not for everyone to set this up, it was a challange. Tho, setting up a flight sim under windows is a challange too.

Europe will change its tune

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough already on bashing intelligence agencies.

"Where Do We Stand?"

[watermark]

Well, MS office running on Wine made made my wife cry yesterday. So in my house, free software is on the defensive.

Working around operating system bugs

[tepples]

Android 4.3 "Jelly Bean 3" introduced a serious bug that caused it not to recognize certain Bluetooth keyboards, instead confusing them with Bluetooth gamepads. Rooting and renaming a keyboard layout was the most successful workaround until Android 4.4 "KitKat" fixed it.

That's Linux and GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

Correctly that would be GNU and Linux as the respective trademarks are controlled by 2 different organizations.

When you contribute code to Linux you are not required to surrender your copyright to the the Linux Foundation. When you contribute code to a GNU project you are required to surrender your copyright. This is why the Linux Kernel will remain GPL 2, Linus doesn't have the right to re-license code he does not own.

Diverse double-compiling

[tepples]

Would recompiling the entire system from source defeat "intercepted in transit and been tampered with for spying purposes"?

If you're worried that your compiler binaries have the "trusting trust" virus proposed by Ken Thompson, you can detect that with David A. Wheeler's "diverse double-compiling" construction. It involves "bootstrapping" a compiler (compiling it with another compiler and then recompiling it with the resulting compiler) and then making sure all copies are bit-identical. Install three different free C compilers, such as GCC, Clang, and TCC, and build GCC 4.7, the last version prior to GCC's switch to C++, with each of them. Then build GCC 4.7 with the three different resulting copies of GCC 4.7 that you just built. The results after this second pass should be bit-identical unless one of your original compilers was compromised. Finally use GCC 4.7 to bootstrap whatever compiler you prefer to use to build the rest of the system.

Re:Diverse double-compiling

[CrimsonAvenger]

Would recompiling the entire system from source defeat "intercepted in transit and been tampered with for spying purposes"?

Only if you have read and understood ALL the source code for same.

Good luck with that....

Re:Diverse double-compiling

[tepples]

"bootstrapping" a compiler (compiling it with another compiler and then recompiling it with the resulting compiler)

Why should different compilers produce bit-identical machinecode from a C-source as big and complex as a compiler itself? Different code generators can make different choices, resulting in different code.

You're bootstrapping the same compiler on all three base compilers, which means the second stage is run on functionally identical compilers. The output of functionally identical compilers on the same input is thus bit-identical. So the first stage is not bit-identical, but the second is. To make it clearer, I shall spell out all steps:

1. Start with independently developed C compilers FooCC, BarCC, and BazCC.
2. Compile GCC with FooCC, producing GCC/FooCC.
3. Compile GCC with BarCC, producing GCC/BarCC. It won't be bit-identical to GCC/FooCC, but because it is GCC, it should produce the same machine code as any other GCC.
4. Compile GCC with BazCC, producing GCC/BazCC. It won't be bit-identical to GCC/FooCC or to GCC/BarCC, but because it is GCC, it should produce the same machine code as any other GCC.
5. Compile GCC with each of the three binary versions of GCC that you just built. Because they are all GCC, they should all produce the same machine code.

If something is still unclear to you, David A. Wheeler's article explains in even more detail.

Jailbreaking doesn't grant software freedom

[jbn-o]

Jailbreaking a device doesn't mean one has software freedom, a critical factor in making sure the device is loyal to its owner. It's good that you donate to the FSF and EFF despite your disagreeing with their goals to let people control their devices. I think people are rightly concerned about global spying and I encourage more learning about software freedom for freedom's sake. People were quick to dismiss the free software movement from the beginning, talking about how it wasn't (to use your words) "realistic or even a good idea" to have software freedom and that we'd never have a completely free OS. We have a lot of free software now (more than anyone can inspect on their own) and we're all better off for it. History shows the doubters were wrong to be dismissive of such concerns back then too. Holding every product to a standard that allows people to fully control their devices is a prerequisite for making software freedom the default in people's lives.

Strongly copylefted free software + enforcement

[jbn-o]

See Brad Kuhn's talk about the future of copyleft (mirror) for the cure to non-copylefted free software—to keep software freedom in derivative works, license with strongly copylefted free software licenses (the AGPL version 3 or later being the best choice now) and then enforce the license.

Not true

[SuperKendall]

iPhones are only able to be freed with a jailbreak because of Apple's bugs that are exploitable to gain root access.

That's not at all true. They have pretty much always been jail breakable over USB, because the device itself needs some means to load new updates no matter what.

What are less frequent are un-tethered jailbreaks, those do rely on the kinds of bugs you are talking about. But that is not necessary to jailbreak; it just makes the process easier. No-one ever said Freedom was guaranteed to be an easy thing...

Stumping for proprietors on /.

[jbn-o]

Ah, the flames from someone without much finesse: Premature declaration of failure to discourage further examination ("The masses have spoken..."), misidentification of fault ("If Apple could have continued using gcc...", "[The FSF] should have gone into the hardware business..."), citing trends with no backing and overvaluing business interests ("...then corporations wouldn't have run away from any GPLv3 software..."), and outright lying about intention and execution ("...weighing the costs of the walled garden (censorship etc) vs the benefits (no viruses)...", "...the attempt to take over the Linux kernel by renaming GNU/Linux..."), your post has so much flamebait to choose from it's almost as if you were taking instruction from an open source proponent who is eager to convince licensors to pick non-copylefted software licenses so they see their work become charitable contributions to software proprietors.

If there's so little interest in protecting oneself from international spying, malware, and other forms of user abuse Glenn Greenwald and other journalists would find it hard to get articles on the Snowden revelations published anywhere, world leaders wouldn't be holding meetings about the Snowden revelations, and people/organizations around the world wouldn't care about encryption. Don't confuse a non-technical user's inability to do better than running proprietary apps from a walled garden with not caring about these issues. They get both no software freedom and plenty of malware in their choice. Most computer users are weighing options where freedom is not available; they're suffering from the myth of choice where all of the readily-available options they know about deny them loyal computers.

Speaking of proprietors, Apple is no victim here. Apple wasn't forced to switch to LLVM and Clang, they chose to because they're proprietors eager to rob users of their software freedom in derivative works. If any organization with the means can be accurately accused of not writing their own stuff, it's Apple not writing their own compilers but instead relying on other compilers. This goes back to NeXT which was the first big GPL copyright infringement case (according to Brad Kuhn, former Executive Director of the FSF which holds the copyright on GCC in his discussion on his OggCast "Free as in Freedom"). NeXT got caught distributing a proprietary derivative of GCC which contained code to compile Objective-C. When Jobs spoke with the FSF about the matter, the FSF informed him that they would enforce their license (GPLv2). Jobs never liked that and never forgot. Apple doesn't mind the GPL they just don't like to be in a position of equality with their users unless they can pull out of that relationship when it suits them (see Apple's purchase of Easy SW which originally developed CUPS).

The FSF never tried to "take over the Linux kernel" and isn't doing so now by properly identifying Linux as a part of an operating system. They have said for years and continue to say they would like the GNU Project to get a share of the credit (1, 2). They also acknowledge that there are systems that don't include GNU and therefore should not be called "GNU slash" anything. No doubt, it would be equally unfair and erroneous to call GNU/kFreeBSD or GNU/HURD a "Linux" system when Linux isn't a part of that. This has nothing to do with capability of writing a kernel; a Linux kernel without the blobs is available so there's no pressing need for a fully-free system to have its own original kernel written by the FSF or the GNU Project. The core of the issue was and is

Re: Stumping for proprietors on /.

[Anonymous Coward]

you are simply responding to a paid propa operative. they lie all the time wo shame. whenever they get dangerous, we can take down their crap with a few precisely targeted arguments. dont worry
  net is stronger tjan the corruptos.

It's not that people are dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

but most people are dumb. They don't want to teach themselves. They only use a public library for internet access. As long as they have someone STUPID enough to help them and ask the same tech questions over and over, they'll never learn.

Re:It's not that people are dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

but most people aredumb.

Why do you assume that the only measure of intelligence is whether or not you have the interest to learn how to program a device?

My 76 year old mother uses an iPhone - loves it, in fact. And she has absolutely no interest in learning how to program it. She also happens to hold a graduate degree in the treatment of speech and language disorders. My 42 year old brother uses an Android phone - loves it, in fact. And he has absolutely no interest in learning how to program it. He also happens to have 2 Master's degrees, and works as a commercial pilot. I have numerous co-workers who are all software engineers, and they use various flavors of smart phones and tablets -- of the dozens of engineers I work with, I know of exactly 2 who do any custom programming of their devices.

It has nothing to do with "being unwilling to teach themselves" - it has everything to do with "having other things they're interested in doing." Plenty of very intelligent people have absolutely zero interest in programming - that doesn't make them dumb.

Free software avoids intentional flaws

[ciaran2014]

Nonsense. I never mentioned security, but even if GNU/Linux's security were as bad as Windows', the point is that Windows comes with publicised backdoors (forced updates), unpublicised backdoors (put in for the NSA or others), and unnecessary technical limits to ensure incompatibilities with non-MS software or to lock the user into buying more MS software.

Every OS has a risk of accidental security flaws, but at least if you run free software (not just a Linux kernel but your OS and applications too) you don't get intentional flaws.

FSF are actually the biggest threat to free softwa

[sectokia]

The FSF has way to much power because of their ability to issue new GPL/GFDL that existing works will automatically be covered by. It is true that the new versions cannot take rights away, but they can grant rights that go against the original concept of 'free'. This is not just 'theoretical'. It has already happened. In GFDL 1.3 they added section 11 "relicensing". Basically this clause allowed companies like Wikipedia who used the GFDL to use all GFDL submitted content under a completely different licence (the CC-BY-SA). The contributors had no say in this and the FSF did not give a shit, it was their way or the high way. There is nothing stopping the FSF from issuing a 'relicensing' clause to anyone for whatever reason they want. Lets say RSM dies one day, and someone less 'nobel' takes over. Microsoft could 'donate' the FSF money, in exchange a clause could be put in to GPLv4+ saying that microsoft is exempt from such and such requirements. Every one who has ever licenced their work under the GPL with a 'or future version' clause is 100% powerless to stop this. Microsoft could then take all their code and use it commercially without giving back. I am thankful that at least in the linux world, the "or future version" GPL rubbish is not catching on. Clause 11 of the GFDL is just a first step in what will be a never ending flood of 'exceptions' for 'mates'.

Yeah, article & responses are sad; blame O'Rei

[Paul Fernhout]

Hard to imagine so little real discussion on this on Slashdot if this article had been posted ten years ago. So much has changed in some ways. For an alternative view of what happened that blames Tim O'Reilly (perhaps too strongly?), see this long article by Evgeny Morozov, a part of which is below:
"The Meme Hustler: Tim O'Reilly's crazy talk"
http://www.thebaffler.com/arti...
"While the brightest minds of Silicon Valley are "disrupting" whatever industry is too crippled to fend off their advances, something odd is happening to our language. Old, trusted words no longer mean what they used to mean; often, they don't mean anything at all. Our language, much like everything these days, has been hacked. Fuzzy, contentious, and complex ideas have been stripped of their subversive connotations and replaced by cleaner, shinier, and emptier alternatives; long-running debates about politics, rights, and freedoms have been recast in the seemingly natural language of economics, innovation, and efficiency. Complexity, as it turns out, is not particularly viral. ...
However, it's not his politics that makes O'Reilly the most dangerous man in Silicon Valley; a burgeoning enclave of Randian thought, it brims with far nuttier cases. O'Reilly's mastery of public relations, on the other hand, is unrivaled and would put many of Washington's top spin doctors to shame. No one has done more to turn important debates about technology--debates that used to be about rights, ethics, and politics--into kumbaya celebrations of the entrepreneurial spirit while making it seem as if the language of economics was, in fact, the only reasonable way to talk about the subject. As O'Reilly discovered a long time ago, memes are for losers; the real money is in epistemes.The Randian undertones in O'Reilly's thinking are hard to miss, even as he flaunts his liberal credentials. "There's a way in which the O'Reilly brand essence is ultimately a story about the hacker as hero, the kid who is playing with technology because he loves it, but one day falls into a situation where he or she is called on to go forth and change the world," he wrote in 2012. But it's not just the hacker as hero that O'Reilly is so keen to celebrate. His true hero is the hacker-cum-entrepreneur, someone who overcomes the insurmountable obstacles erected by giant corporations and lazy bureaucrats in order to fulfill the American Dream 2.0: start a company, disrupt an industry, coin a buzzword. Hiding beneath this glossy veneer of disruption-talk is the same old gospel of individualism, small government, and market fundamentalism that we associate with Randian characters. For Silicon Valley and its idols, innovation is the new selfishness. ...
It was the growing popularity of "open source software" that turned O'Reilly into a national (and, at least in geek circles, international) figure. "Open source software" was also the first major rebranding exercise overseen by Team O'Reilly. This is where he tested all his trademark discursive interventions: hosting a summit to define the concept, penning provocative essays to refine it, producing a host of books and events to popularize it, and cultivating a network of thinkers to proselytize it. ...
Underpinning Stallman's project was a profound critique of the role that patent law had come to play in stifling innovation and creativity. Perhaps inadvertently, Stallman also made a prescient argument for treating code, and technological infrastructure more broadly, as something that ought to be subject to public scrutiny. He sought to open up the very technological black boxes that corporations conspired to keep shut. Had his efforts succeeded, we might already be living in a world where the intricacies of software used for high-frequency trading or biometric identification presented no major mysteries.
Stallman is highly idiosyncratic, to put it

Diverse double-compiling

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should different compilers produce bit-identical machinecode from a C-source as big and complex as a compiler itself? Different code generators can make different choices, resulting in different code.

Re:Yeah, article & responses are sad; blame O'

[Paul Fernhout]

BTW, my own current work on all that, just checked in a new update to a version of the Pointrel System yesterday which I am please with conceptually. I use it here:
    https://github.com/pdfernhout/...

But the main repository for that version of the Pointrel System is here:
https://github.com/pdfernhout/...

It has ideas in it that could be useful for a Simple Federated Wiki like Ward is working towards and other knowledge sharing tools beyond that. At the core of this version of the system is the idea is document "envelopes" which wrap JSON objects and supply indexed metadata including arbitrary triples and also supply a document ID, where you can post new versions of a document with later timestamps to change the indexing of them or the content. This is just my own twist on a lot of ideas that have been running around for a long time (including in CouchDB, MongoDB, RDF, Wikis, git, and my own previous work). Inspiration often ping-pongs back and forth between people or indirectly across networks.

Anyway, I'd say Ward Cunningham's "Wiki Way" feels somewhat more like Stallman's ideals than O'Reilly's "Open Source" ideals, even if it is different in its own way.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiWay
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheWiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

However, there are truths to what all of these people have to say from their different perspectives, whether about ideology, practice within pragmatic current politics, or community tools. It can be hard to put them all together.

Pay someone to audit code your company uses

[tepples]

The difference with free software is that you can pay someone to understand the source code for you, as has been happening with OpenSSL. You can also reap the benefit of the published results of any other such audit project.

Re:Pay someone to audit code your company uses

[Anonymous Coward]

you can pay someone to understand the source code for you

And I pay someone to understand closed source code for me, as well: the company that produces it.

That I "can" read the source code myself doesn't make a bit of fucking difference if I don't actually do so, and understand what I've read - in you're solution, I'm still paying someone some money, and taking them at their word that they are:
1) Able to understand the code;
2) Conscientious enough to tell me the truth;
3) Going to take the time to do a thorough job;

There is NO practical difference between:

1) I pay ClosedSource, Inc. some money to purchase a copy of their software; they assure me that their software is backdoor free and meets the highest standards of security and performance, because after all - they pay good money to their engineers to ensure their software meets a certain standard of quality and reliability!

2) I download a copy of OpenSourceProject, and spend the same amount of money to pay OpenSourceAuditExperts, Inc. to audit the code for me. They assure me that the open source software is backdoor free and meets the highest standards of security and performance - after all, I paid good money to them to ensure that the software meets a certain standard of quality and reliability!

In either case, I'm outsourcing my understanding of the software running on my system to a third party, who I have no choice but to trust. There's absolutely no guarantee that the Open Source auditor will find, flag, and report issues he finds, or will even UNDERSTAND all of the code so that he's able to find, flag, and report issues he finds.

The funny thing is, you cite OpenSSL -- already an Open Source project -- as a great example of how you can "pay someone" to understand the source code for you. If the Open Source *developers writing the goddamned software* don't understand if their software is secure, how in god's name is some third party auditor going to do any better?

iOS enterprise SDK

[jbolden]

I don't get the FSF on this

iOS is the epitome of everything we need to avoid to have a free society: a single gatekeeper who claims it is illegal for you to even install software they don't approve on your own device.

The FSF could rectify this easily by running their own enterprise server: https://developer.apple.com/pr... for iOS. Then they let people point at their servers and not Apple's (or in addition to Apple's). It could be as open or as closed as they want it to be. Why year after year after year complain about this problem when you could just fix it?

I've liked the FSF since about 1990 but as a public interest lobby lying doesn't help your cause. I don't get even if they don't want to fix it why they can't accurately describe the situation with iOS.

Re:iOS enterprise SDK

[Anonymous Coward]

I though of that a couple of years ago. At that point doing something like this was strictly forbidden. Every user had to be an employee of you enterprise, and no you couldn't "hire" the entire world.

Apple is locked down freedom-disrespecting world. End of story.

Re:iOS enterprise SDK

[jbolden]

I'm not sure if I see the employment requirement. I know for a fact that the enterprise SDK is usable for 1099s and not just W2s. Moreover even if true, the FSF could just ask Apple and get an exemption for themselves. Apple has a long track record of having strict rules and then exempting on a case by case basis where they believed it was good for the ecosystem.

Re:FSF are actually the biggest threat to free sof

[new_01]

Yes, but this only demonstrates the potential loophole in the GPL+ type licenses. Not licenses like the Linux kernel uses that says only GPLv2. Linus has even talked about the pitfalls of using "or future version". I suppose people are choosing between either the proprietary companies finding loopholes in the future and protecting against that with GPLv+ or something happening to the founders and people that run the FSF and bad GPL licenses coming out in the future. If copyright assignment is granted over to the people that run your particular project then you can re-license after reading the new GPL versions and everything is fine. The problem with that is now people have to trust your project leaders more than the FSF. Well, the FSF proposes to fix this by assigning them your copyright. But in that case you may as well have just let everyone keep their copyright and done a GPLv+ license and hope for the best in the future. I suppose the worst case is that a new GPL would come out that allows Microsoft to do whatever they want, but that really may not be much different than a BSD style license, specific to Microsoft mind you, but not a bad license really.

GNU/Linux is incorrect it's GNU and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Correctly that would be GNU and Linux as they are trademarks and controlled by 2 different organizations.

GNU/Linux system is incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

Correctly that would be GNU and Linux as they are trademarks and controlled by 2 different organizations.

There is nothing in the GPL that requires systems based on GNU software to be called GNU anything, and they specifically request to not have GNU/win anything.

In addition for a project to actually become a GNU project or code/documentation to be committed to GNU project they require legal papers surrendering your copyright.

Despite the weasel words, yes it is an attempt to hijack Linux; just like they demand the surrender of copyright for a project to become a GNU project. And to reiterate, there is no attribution clause in the GPL or LGPL, they are just trying to impose one after the fact.

Just a thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion nor do I wish to, I don't like the direction it may go, but I would like to take this opportunity to affirm my loyal and unwavering support to our democratically-elected government and especially to our President Barack Hussein Obama. I am awed by the great and hard job they are doing to keep up safe and to restore security and prosperity to this great Nation, and understand they only have our best interests at heart, and know what's best for us. I wish them all the best and will keep on supporting our government. That is all I wanted to say. You will never count me among the ungrateful dissenters and malcontents which - although a small minority - poison a yet-unregulated Internet. Thank you.

Which is why the GPL is more free.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you can't be told what to do with the code you're given, as long as you don't tell *someone else* what to do with the code, you own that code more completely than any other license bar the BSD, and, unlike the BSD, everyone else who gets the code is more free.

Your freedom is abridged ONLY IN WHAT YOU CAN TELL OTHER PEOPLE what to do with your code. The code itself is still entirely yours to do with what you want. What you can SAY ABOUT is not what you can DO WITH the code.

And for SOLELY the lines you wrote, you can take them out of the combined work and tell someone else what they can do with solely those bits all you like.

And with software patents, BSD is less free since someone can have patented the code you modified and therefore can make a claim against you and restrict what you do with the code you created, even the code you changed, if it is part of the patent infringement.

It is not viral.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use GPL software and modify it, ONLY THOSE YOU GIVE THE SOFTWARE TO need to get the changed source.

I.e. yourself. And, uhm, yourself....

Yeah, well viral...

Meanwhile if you take up an MSDN subscription and use a code stub to do something that you saw on there, you may later find out that you used "Microsoft copyrighted" code and you not only have to pay a shitload of money (merely opening up your code won't help, nor will sharing the full source with Microsoft, unlike the GPL), you will find yourself having to remove the code and go for a full audit to check you're not hiding other "criminal activity".

That, however, is viral because of copyright.

Don't like viral licenses? Remove copyrights.

In what way is the GPL less free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the code you did not write isn't yours, but every single change you did can be done on some other code if you like. That's ENTIRELY FREE.

Therefore your GPL code may be "less free" than if it were BSD, but if that person didn't let you HAVE the code, as the BSD allows, then the code is *LESS FREE*.

But the GPL doesn't stop you doing whatever you want to the combined code.

NOT ONE RESTRICTION.

The only restriction is on what you can TELL OTHER PEOPLE TO DO.

Not the code.

The code is still free as a bird.

What's limited is your ability to force other people to be less free than you.

Which is why the GPL is more free than the BSD.

Conflict of interest

[tepples]

And I pay someone to understand closed source code for me, as well: the company that produces it.

Not if the company has a conflict of interest and either A. is incompetent at understanding the whole thing, whether due to underfunding or mismanagement, or B. intentionally wants to hide undesirable aspects from its clients. See The Bug Nobody is Allowed to Understand.

There is NO practical difference

In the case of free software, you're free to get a second opinion. You're also free to fix defects that the publisher acknowledges but declines to fix.

libgcc

[tepples]

How do you propose they prevent GCC from producing propriety software? Probably would if they could, but I don't think there's any legal mechanism that would allow that.

Have the compiler copy a copylefted piece of code into the output, and have the compiled code rely on that piece of code. They could call it "libgcc" or "libsupc++".