Free software predates Berkley Unix. Berkley Unix itself came from AT&Ts open source version of Unix. Open source predates Unix, what AT&T did was not unusual. All through the 1950s and 60s distributing source was almost universal.
Of course there are reasons they couldn't have used BSD. There are no BSD kernels with both the same breadth of experience on the embedded space as Linux, and in addition a healthy user space.
Why would that be a problem? You can link anything you are licensed to anything else. You can't redistribute the entire work whether the linked code was PD, GPL or BSD because you can't redistribute the commercial code.
Because there is lots and lots and lots of case law on the kinds of restrictions in EULAs. And a moderately sized check solves the problem.
In the case of the GPL they are looking at clauses with little case law, that could theoretically be interpreted very very broadly. They are also going to be dealing with organizations that aren't necessarily interested in money and might be much more concerned to make a point.
The statutory minimum is $750 per copy! If the court finds it to be intentional they can fine as high as $150k per incident (that is per copy). So a closed source program that violates a GPL and sells a million copies is could be looking at a 3/4 billion in damages easily.
There haven't been that many GPL cases that went the distance, but most companies that have been found to violate the GPL have gone broke. In other cases with violations courts have:
a) Impounded the offending code and transfered the ownership b) Transfered all assets of a company c) Criminal penalties (section 2319 of title 18) d) Destruction of all copies e) Forfeiture of all outstanding fees
etc...
This is not like they get to say "whoops" and walk away. The FSF has been extremely kind in dealing with violators. MySQL showed what the GPL could do in the hands of a rights holder that wanted blood.
Absolutely the GPL is a very strict software license. Commercial licenses tend to be very liberal, about link terms. Commercial licenses are strict about terms of payment but other than that impose few restrictions. If you are want to be very casual about your linking processes and very cautious in your internal licensing processes commercial is the way to go. If you want to be cautious about your linking and casual about your internal licensing then the GPL is fine.
Of course it destroys freedom. The BSD license has a long history of destroying freedom for end users to be able to modify the code they actually care about and not some upstream reference implementation that is of no value to them.
This is an absurd notion. One line of GPL code does not make 100,000 lines a derivative any more than my adding a line to a wikipedia article makes those older lines a derivative of my insightful one liner.
The FSF doesn't get to define the notion of derivative work, that comes from US copyright law. And while 1 line doesn't do anything... a small block of say a dozen lines does in fact make 100,000 lines that contain them a derivative work. That is why a 150 minute movie that uses an actors image for 3 seconds needs to license it.
Since when does Apple fight aggressively against Open Source? They have spent billions writing open source applications and distributing them. They run one of the largest open source repositories (MacPorts)...
And countless times BSD advocates fail to address the "in practice the original code doesn't matter" argument. The classic example is X-Windows where the same source was available and that did lots of good for OS companies but no good for Unix end users that had no way to modify the X-Windows they actually were using and actually cared about.
BSD licenses have a long history of giving people access to source that does them no good since crucial components are missing.
The app store doesn't have to distribute the source if they link to it. So just include a link in the binary. If not then the source is a data package which is a "free app".
Siri was a paid service with cost software when it existed for the 3GS & 4. Apple bought Siri but continued to charge. Apple removed paid Siri but gave it away for 4S customers. There exist hacks enabling Siri to work on 3GS and 4 and they work fine.
I'd say that evidence is fully consistent with Siri not being a free product but rather a commercial product that Apple is bundling in with their 4S.
That is a different situation then free software not being made available. I that in either case the end user isn't getting a service, but I think it is fair to note that the similarity ends there and the simile you are making breaks down.
I don't think that was ever promised. What was said was that open source projects would get large number of people to work on the project which is different then work for you. There are many open source projects that involve multiple parties, Apache being a good example. Microsoft had to develop IIS alone, Apache was collaborative.
Open sourcing is not an outsourcing solution and was never promised as one. It is a collaborative development solution.
If Google were marketing a toolkit and not a platform that would be fine. But Android is marketed as a platform and seen as a platform. For a platform having a blase "we don't care what the hardware manufacturers do" is not acceptable. What Android manufacturers do determines platform policy. Google as the platform leaders is responsible for platform policy. If carriers or manufacturers implement bad policies and Google is blase about it, then consumers are quite correct in rejecting the platform.
Notwithstanding that Android might be a good toolkit.
Oh OK so they even delivered on the PowerPC. 3.51 counts in my book, that was the NT kernel which means they could have done more if their was interest. OK so GP's point is total BS. Thank you for the info.
I didn't say billions writing drivers you did. There is a lot more, especially testing and coordination that goes into it. Also they go much deeper than drivers, they embed code to handle hardware deficiencies further up in the system. For example when CDRoms used to run as virtual SCSI many of the hardware manufacturers didn't have this virtual bus handle signaling properly. They actually had exceptions and special bypass code in the whole SCSI subsystem not just at the driver level.
Android is younger. The oldest Android phone is the G1 and that never got an OS update. The next oldest is the HTC mytouch (about 2 1/2 yers and) and that did get an update around Oct 2010, so it is still rather currentish. But I believe semi-officially that is a no for Ice Cream.
Carriers are throwing lots of money in getting people to upgrade. On an Apple phone you are throwing away $15-18/mo in subsidy by not upgraded. You are being well compensated to update regularly. I think it is a fair assumption you will.
. I'm 100% sure that Apple, Samsung, Motorola, and friends wouldn't mind selling a new phone once a year.
Oh they would love to sell you a new phone once a month. The problem is cost. Consumers are only willing to pay so much for great (and improving) cell phone service. Manufacturers get a percentage of that and sometimes some cash direct from the consumer (price with 2 year contract). There is a healthy used market for phones so people willing to spend much more can upgrade more regularly at a sane cost. But that is a small percentage of users.
Slashdot Mirror
Free software predates Berkley Unix. Berkley Unix itself came from AT&Ts open source version of Unix. Open source predates Unix, what AT&T did was not unusual. All through the 1950s and 60s distributing source was almost universal.
Actually the kernel is under the normal GPL it has an explicit statement of interpretation. That's not actually a modified form of the license.
Of course there are reasons they couldn't have used BSD. There are no BSD kernels with both the same breadth of experience on the embedded space as Linux, and in addition a healthy user space.
The mass use of open source as a coinciding with the adoption of the GPL/LGPL model by most free software developers.
The copyright owner can relicense code however they choose. The license makes no difference at all to the owner.
Why would that be a problem? You can link anything you are licensed to anything else. You can't redistribute the entire work whether the linked code was PD, GPL or BSD because you can't redistribute the commercial code.
It will get worked through via. case law. The situation is much better than it was 10 years ago.
Because there is lots and lots and lots of case law on the kinds of restrictions in EULAs. And a moderately sized check solves the problem.
In the case of the GPL they are looking at clauses with little case law, that could theoretically be interpreted very very broadly. They are also going to be dealing with organizations that aren't necessarily interested in money and might be much more concerned to make a point.
The statutory minimum is $750 per copy! If the court finds it to be intentional they can fine as high as $150k per incident (that is per copy). So a closed source program that violates a GPL and sells a million copies is could be looking at a 3/4 billion in damages easily.
There haven't been that many GPL cases that went the distance, but most companies that have been found to violate the GPL have gone broke. In other cases with violations courts have:
a) Impounded the offending code and transfered the ownership
b) Transfered all assets of a company
c) Criminal penalties (section 2319 of title 18)
d) Destruction of all copies
e) Forfeiture of all outstanding fees
etc...
This is not like they get to say "whoops" and walk away. The FSF has been extremely kind in dealing with violators. MySQL showed what the GPL could do in the hands of a rights holder that wanted blood.
Absolutely the GPL is a very strict software license. Commercial licenses tend to be very liberal, about link terms. Commercial licenses are strict about terms of payment but other than that impose few restrictions. If you are want to be very casual about your linking processes and very cautious in your internal licensing processes commercial is the way to go. If you want to be cautious about your linking and casual about your internal licensing then the GPL is fine.
Of course it destroys freedom. The BSD license has a long history of destroying freedom for end users to be able to modify the code they actually care about and not some upstream reference implementation that is of no value to them.
The FSF doesn't get to define the notion of derivative work, that comes from US copyright law. And while 1 line doesn't do anything... a small block of say a dozen lines does in fact make 100,000 lines that contain them a derivative work. That is why a 150 minute movie that uses an actors image for 3 seconds needs to license it.
Since when does Apple fight aggressively against Open Source? They have spent billions writing open source applications and distributing them. They run one of the largest open source repositories (MacPorts)...
And countless times BSD advocates fail to address the "in practice the original code doesn't matter" argument. The classic example is X-Windows where the same source was available and that did lots of good for OS companies but no good for Unix end users that had no way to modify the X-Windows they actually were using and actually cared about.
BSD licenses have a long history of giving people access to source that does them no good since crucial components are missing.
The app store doesn't have to distribute the source if they link to it. So just include a link in the binary. If not then the source is a data package which is a "free app".
I think you are misunderstanding...
Siri was a paid service with cost software when it existed for the 3GS & 4.
Apple bought Siri but continued to charge.
Apple removed paid Siri but gave it away for 4S customers.
There exist hacks enabling Siri to work on 3GS and 4 and they work fine.
I'd say that evidence is fully consistent with Siri not being a free product but rather a commercial product that Apple is bundling in with their 4S.
That is a different situation then free software not being made available. I that in either case the end user isn't getting a service, but I think it is fair to note that the similarity ends there and the simile you are making breaks down.
Tinkers can already convert the existing tablets over. They don't need a manufacturer support OS for tinkering.
I don't think that was ever promised. What was said was that open source projects would get large number of people to work on the project which is different then work for you. There are many open source projects that involve multiple parties, Apache being a good example. Microsoft had to develop IIS alone, Apache was collaborative.
Open sourcing is not an outsourcing solution and was never promised as one. It is a collaborative development solution.
If Google were marketing a toolkit and not a platform that would be fine. But Android is marketed as a platform and seen as a platform. For a platform having a blase "we don't care what the hardware manufacturers do" is not acceptable. What Android manufacturers do determines platform policy. Google as the platform leaders is responsible for platform policy. If carriers or manufacturers implement bad policies and Google is blase about it, then consumers are quite correct in rejecting the platform.
Notwithstanding that Android might be a good toolkit.
You are intermixing two things.
1) The effects of a nuclear meltdown.
2) The effects of a population overreacting and panicing.
(2) is creating the problems. There is no reason for people under 50 to have moved away from a place 35km away today.
Oh OK so they even delivered on the PowerPC. 3.51 counts in my book, that was the NT kernel which means they could have done more if their was interest. OK so GP's point is total BS. Thank you for the info.
I didn't say billions writing drivers you did. There is a lot more, especially testing and coordination that goes into it. Also they go much deeper than drivers, they embed code to handle hardware deficiencies further up in the system. For example when CDRoms used to run as virtual SCSI many of the hardware manufacturers didn't have this virtual bus handle signaling properly. They actually had exceptions and special bypass code in the whole SCSI subsystem not just at the driver level.
ICS is free, Siri is not and has never been even prior to Apple owning it.
Android is younger. The oldest Android phone is the G1 and that never got an OS update. The next oldest is the HTC mytouch (about 2 1/2 yers and) and that did get an update around Oct 2010, so it is still rather currentish. But I believe semi-officially that is a no for Ice Cream.
Carriers are throwing lots of money in getting people to upgrade. On an Apple phone you are throwing away $15-18/mo in subsidy by not upgraded. You are being well compensated to update regularly. I think it is a fair assumption you will.
Oh they would love to sell you a new phone once a month. The problem is cost. Consumers are only willing to pay so much for great (and improving) cell phone service. Manufacturers get a percentage of that and sometimes some cash direct from the consumer (price with 2 year contract). There is a healthy used market for phones so people willing to spend much more can upgrade more regularly at a sane cost. But that is a small percentage of users.