That is exactly what insurance is about - distribute predictable risk at a cost. It is not about the low-risk subsidizing the high-risk. If you want the low-risk to sponsor the at-risk, then what you are talking about is government management of healthcare. Insurance is a red herring in the American health care debate - insurance simply is not about what Americans seem to think it should be about. It's about predicting your actual risk and charging you a fee that is proportional to that risk. So with insurance, many people will face unaffordable fees because their risk is unaffordable. That's what insurance is, it is not about the low-risk sponsoring the high-risk, it is about paying for the removal of whatever risk you actually have, and that price is going to be very high if your risk is very high. Don't blame the insurance companies for being insurance companies. If what you actually want is for the low-risk to sponsor the high-risk people, then you are not talking about insurance, so stop using the word insurance because insurance is not about that. Instead, realize that you are a supporter of government healthcare and go support what you actually believe in.
I agree that Apple's approach allows for a significant security improvement, so you do get some security in return for the restrictions on the device. However, I'm pretty sure that Apple would rather not have any hackers around who jailbreak their iPhone. The whole setup has very practical benefits for all concerned, and for many people those practical benefits make up for the also very real drawbacks.
I have not read the FSF's comments about the Apple SDK, so I won't comment about that. In general the FSF tend to sound like a group of crazy people. I guess they could do with a PR department. However, the reason they sound so crazy is not that what they are saying is wrong, it is because they talk about issues that normal people haven't thought about. They don't care about practical benefits or the convenience of setups such as Apple's, and that makes them seem impractical. They only care about a decades or centuries long perspective on how technology is going to influence society, and in particular they point to how things can go very wrong, and who might bring about such a world. So they end up talking about big software companies like Apple and Microsoft as their "enemies", which make them sound crazy. However, if you take their long-view perspective, their concerns are not unfounded. They talk about "enemies" because these companies are moving the world in the direction of what the FSF fears, both technologically and in terms of influencing legislation.
The iPhone situation today is not much of a problem - just don't buy an iPhone if you don't like, easy. Imagine a world where every device works like that, and there is a central body that has to approve you just for you to have the legal right to own a decompiler, a compiler or even a device that runs code not compiled by a legally certified software developer. The future's Fahrenheit 451 may not be burning of books, it may be that all the disapproved-of books vanish one day when it is retired from electronic devices because they are all locked down and out of your control so you can't get a device that will store an outlawed book, or if you are a developer with outlawed information on your unlocked device, you'll lose your legal license to own such devices. With that in mind it suddenly makes sense when the FSF speak of "software freedoms". Amazon has already retired already-sold books from people's Kindles without people having any way of stopping it, something the FSF was talking about more than 10 years ago before there were ebook readers of any kind. I don't think the FSF's perspective is the only perspective that makes sense, but I'm very glad that someone out there is taking such a perspective, and the FSF is the only game in town for that. It sounds crazy because their perspective is novel, because it is impractical if you just want to get on with your work right now, because people without a certain level of technological expertise can't understand the issues and it's not something you'll hear in the press.
I don't think Apple are breaking the GPL 3 either since, as far as I know, they do not distribute any GPL 3 software preloaded on their iPhones. It is debatable if it is in the spirit of the GPL that you should be able to actually run the software you modified on the hardware you got it with, or if it is enough that you can just modify the source.
Now I slight variant is, "I want to self sign my applications". OK you can do that but you need to register with the signing authority. They charge for that, its called buying the iOS SDK. Otherwise how do they know who you are?
Thanks for explaining the scheme used. If they want to keep that scheme, then that is fine, it is just that then they are unable to comply by the GPL 3 for preloaded applications and so cannot preload such applications. Of course, if they actually wanted to do so they would just give you a way to self-sign at no cost. They don't want to do that for the same reason that they don't want people to jailbreak their phones - they want to protect the iPhone you bought from being used by you in a way they don't like. A main activity they don't like you to use your iPhone for is buying apps from someone other than them, except if you give them money anyway. So I don't think we'll ever see preloaded GPL 3 software on an iPhone or similarly restricted devices.
As for why the tivoization clause has no bite, it may be as you say that they just didn't think about it. I doubt that, though, as the FSF usually predict very accurately what bad things are coming 20 years or more before they happen. It may have been that they got a lot of bad press on the tivoization clause, as they did, and then they toned it down. I don't know. Perhaps we are misreading it.
Thinking this through another way. Your end user is saying they will only trust Apple to confirm developer identities. You are paying $99 for a service, Apple to confirm to your end users that you are who you say you are. I don't think the GPL prohibits paying for additional services.
In this situation it would not be *my* rights that were in question, it would be the right of the end users to themselves modify my software and then have that modified software run on their own iPhone. So *I* wouldn't be paying 100$ to Apple, my end users would be, in order for them to exercise their right to modify and then run my GPL 3 software. Though this would only come up if Apple preloads the software, apparently.
Suppose I'm a user who buys an iPhone with GPL 3 Samba preloaded on it (which I cannot do since Apple does not include Samba on the iPhone, but suppose). Then we have looked at a clause of the GPL 3 that says that Apple must provide me all the "installation information" if I request it. The installation information includes any keys necessary for me to install modified versions of Samba on my iPhone. So I can demand of Apple that they provide me such a key, even if I have no intention of using it or compiling anything (so I don't already have an SDK, or perhaps I intend to compile on a non-Apple compiler). Then Apple responds that they make the key available, but only as part of the SDK, and I'm free to buy the SDK at 100$. What I'm saying is that that does not fulfill Apple's GPL 3 obligations that they would take on as part of preloading Samba, because I asked them for the key that the GPL 3 says I can demand of them, and they said "we will give the installation information to you, but only if you pay us 100$ first". This clause of the GPL 3 exactly states that that is not OK:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License [...]
The GPL 3 grants me the right to demand installation information in certain circumstances. When those circumstances apply, then I cannot be charged anything when I exercise the right of demanding the installation information. What I'm demanding is not a copy of the SDK, I'm demanding the installation information and part of the installation information is a key. So Apple would not have to provide me a compiler or the SDK, but they would have to provide me a key.
It seems that the GPL 3 is full of holes with respect to the anti-tivoization clause, so yeah, perhaps just deferring installation of the software until the first time the user logs on to the internet is sufficient to by-pass that clause entirely. However, depending on how it is done, it may be possible to argue that in some cases the deferred software was in fact bought as part of the same transaction where the iPhone was bought even if the actual installation is deferred. For such an argument to go through, it would probably be necessary for the iPhone to be a useful piece of technology in some way even without the extra, deferred software. Of course, if only the GPL 3 parts of the software were deferred, than that condition should be satisfied. I now think that the anti-tivoization clause is almost worthless at doing what it were intended to do, and I don't really understand how that can be true since the GPL 3 was heavily scrutinized before it was finalized. It seems to me that if Apple does not like GPL 3 on non-preloaded software, it is probably more to do with the patent part of the GPL 3 that says you can't sue someone for patent infringement if you yourself gave them the GPL 3 software that you are suing them for using. So I changed my mind on that account.
So if the GPL 3 says I can get a key, I must be given the key at no charge, even if I have no plans to compile anything.
The catch is that's not a right granted under the license. Its simply a mechanism of installation. The iOS SDK / iTunes is the mechanism by which you install custom software. The GPL isn't granting you the right to do that, you already had that right.
The quote is clear: If Apple preloads GPL 3 software, then they must also provide me keys without imposing any additional conditions such as requiring a separate payment for giving me the key so that I can modify the software. That would not be true without the GPL 3, as then it is allowed for them to sell the iPhone without keys exactly as they are in fact doing now. An offer to provide a key later for a fee is irrelevant as the GPL 3 does not allow for a fee when it comes to fulfilling that obligation. I would not otherwise have the right to tell Apple "you must provide me keys now without any conditions such as a payment."
Then everyone would get the iPad with a bunch of software. If they wanted anymore software they would need to install it via. the SDK/ iTunes. Everyone just has to know someone who pays a $99 / yr fee for the right to create and install their own software. Your hangup is that you keep trying to conjoin Apple as a maker of the SDK and Apple as the guys who happen to have one particular slick provisioning file called "The Apple Store".
You still don't understand how it works - if anyone is required by the GPL 3 to give you keys, then they must provide them without a fee, so the existence of an offer to buy keys for 100$ simply does not have any relevance when it comes to satisfying the GPL 3 - a for-a-fee key cannot be used to satisfy the GPL 3. The upshot of that is that only Apple can satisfy the requirement of offering keys, at least if they don't want to be paying 100$ to Apple only to then have to pass that key on for free. So if someone wants to sell iPhones along with GPL3 software, then they must give you a key to modify the software if you ask for it, and they must do so for free. If "they" are Apple then Apple must give you the key at no charge, and if "they" are not Apple, they must purchase a key from Apple and then give it to you for free. It is not relevant who made the device in the first place. If someone wants to sell you GPL 3 software separate from the iPhone itself, there seems to be no requirements of keys as the anti-tivoisation clause seems to only apply to pre-loaded software.
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License [...]
So if the GPL 3 says I can get a key, I must be given the key at no charge, even if I have no plans to compile anything. However, this surprised me:
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information.
As far as I can tell this is the only part where the GPL 3 grants rights to keys. However, as far as I can tell, this right is only granted for software purchased together with the device on which the software is run. So if an iPhone came preloaded with GPL 3 software then Apple would have to provide keys. However a straight-forward reading of this certainly suggests that as long as you buy your GPL 3 software in Apple's app-store after you already have an iPhone, then it is fine for Apple to deny you the opportunity to modify the app you bought. That seems very strange - e.g. Tivo can then just first sell you an almost (but not quite) do-nothing Tivo device with no GPL 3 software on it, and then afterwards and separately sell you GPL 3 software that you may install for full functionality, where the Tivo device itself refuses any modified version. This scenario is exactly the same as buying additional functionality in an app-store for the iPhone. If this reading is correct then GPL 3 does not actually resist tivoization, which seems strange to me.
There is no difference between 99 keys and 1 key or for that sake a billion billion keys. A key you pay for is not compatible with the GPL 3 because GLP 3 has language addressing keys and you can't put limitations on them such as requiring payment. The GPL 3 has no language requiring provision of a compiler or a harddisk or a cpu, so no you don't need to provide those. Keys and similar restrictions are special because the GPL 3 make them special. So yes, you can get keys from Apple, but you can't get keys in the way you must be able to to satisfy the GPL 3 - keys without conditions. You can only get a key on the special condition of payment and that's not OK for the GPL 3. I don't understand why you would think that the FSF would make a license with the objective of denying tivoization, but then allow tivo to provide keys at a price of, say, a trillion dollars. Unless you are saying that the GPL 3 has monetary amounts in it that says that 100$ is OK but a trillion dollars is not? I'm not aware of any such provision.
That's not what the app store does. It is Apple giving you the binary when you buy things on the Apple app store, so it is their responsibility to actually have the right to distribute those binaries and they would not have that right in the case of GPL 3 software because they won't abide by the GPL 3 terms. If Apple didn't have an app store and just gave developers keys for them themselves to distribute their apps with, then Apple wouldn't acquire GPL liability however then the developers would be breaking the GPL by distributing for the iPhone where they cannot comply with the requirement to hand over the keys. In all cases you can't distribute GPL 3 software for the iPhone because there is no way to acquire the keys. It is not enough that all your customers get a free SDK from you. Those customers must also be able to distribute the software themselves, and so you would have to promise to provide free SDKs for anyone whom your customers give copies to and you can't impose limits on your customers about who they give copies to.
Apple would be violating the license as well, they just wouldn't know it. There is no "B's license" since B has no power to license other than the GPL. It is the same as if you gave me a document with Barack Obama's signature on it giving me all his possessions - I may have the paper, but that gives me no claim on Barack Obama's property because he didn't actually sign it. However it doesn't really matter because what we are discussing is if Apple wants to abide by the terms of the GPL, not if they can be tricked into taking on that responsibility - if they were tricked probably they would stop distribution of the app in question and hope not to get sued over the matter.
It is irrelevant that making a VB compiler is difficult - what matters is that it is possible. The keys in the SDK may serve the purpose you mention if those keys were free, but those keys aren't free. The keys must be handed over unconditionally and requiring payment is an extra condition that the GPL does not allow for - otherwise you could by-pass the GPL entirely by charging a trillion dollars for the keys.
Whoever gives you binaries is bound by the GPL 3, so if you got them from Apple then Apple is bound by the GPL. If you didn't get binaries from Apple, but Apple is making it impossible to meet the conditions of the GPL 3, then whoever gave you those binaries did not have the right to do so since they cannot comply with the GPL 3. As a user you can sue whoever promised you to abide by the GPL 3 but then doesn't, and as a copyright holder you can sue whoever is distributing your code without abiding by the terms that you gave them to do so. This talk of the SDK is a red herring - it has nothing to do with the SDK. It has to do with the keys that you get along with the SDK. I could write my own SDK, but it wouldn't help because what I really need is the keys. The GPL 3 specifically addresses the question of keys. VB has no requirement of keys. You can write your own compiler for VB and your own virtual machine and then you don't need any MS products. There may be patent restrictions on doing so, which the GPL 3 also forbids, but that is a different issue.
Tivoization is a dangerous attempt to curtail users' freedom: the right to modify your software will become meaningless if none of your computers let you do it. GPLv3 stops tivoization by requiring the distributor to provide you with whatever information or data is necessary to install modified software on the device. This may be as simple as a set of instructions, or it may include special data such as cryptographic keys or information about how to bypass an integrity check in the hardware. It will depend on how the hardware was designed—but no matter what information you need, you must be able to get it.
This requirement is limited in scope. Distributors are still allowed to use cryptographic keys for any purpose, and they'll only be required to disclose a key if you need it to modify GPLed software on the device they gave you. The GNU Project itself uses GnuPG to prove the integrity of all the software on its FTP site, and measures like that are beneficial to users. GPLv3 does not stop people from using cryptography; we wouldn't want it to. It only stops people from taking away the rights that the license provides you—whether through patent law, technology, or any other means.
If Apple allowed GPL 3 software on the iPhone, then they would have to make it possible for me to change that software on my actual iPhone without any additional conditions. A payment is one such additional condition. You can charge for GPL 3 software, but you can't first deliver it and then require a charge to live up to the requirements of the GPL 3. If the SDK was free and freely redistributable then maybe there wouldn't be an issue, but clearly Apple don't want that since then competitors could set up competing app stores for the iPhone.
The scary contamination in Tokyo is between 0.3% and 1.5% of the radioactive exposure you get from smoking one cigarette. Scary, isn't it?
It's not the level of immediate radioisotope exposure that's the problem, it's that the radioisotopes released by this accident accumulate in the body and continue to irradiate you. In particular, radioiodine accumulates quite effectively in the thyroid gland and is radioactive enough to cause serious damage to it.
It also has a half-time of 8 days so it disappears quickly, so it cannot accumulate over a period longer than, say, 10 days. You still don't want it in your body, but low doses are not much of a problem. The highest allowed dose is the lowest level at which anyone has been able to detect any harm coming from it when someone is exposed to that level for an entire year. The people in Tokyo are getting less than that dose and just a few days now.
So a normal iPhone that you buy in a store as a non-developer does not have that option. It's not that I want them to add that option, I'm pointing out that Apple has a loop-hole for them to comply with the GPL. But they don't because then they'd lose control.
That's a very convincing argument you've got there. I wonder why people have to jailbreak their iPhones if Apple actually don't care about locking down the iPhone?
You didn't understand the part where Apple wouldn't really want such a feature to be actually used by Joe Sixpack Apple User, or in fact anyone, so your post itself is irrelevant.
Give the user the option of adding keys that his system will accept in some way that Eve can't make happen without physical access to the system. Make it technical enough that Joe Sixpack can't be prompted to do it by a virus because the instructions will be too complicated. Problem solved. Except it isn't, because signing code isn't just about keeping the user safe, it's about profiting from limiting the options of the user. Apple doesn't want anyone else competing with them on selling apps for the iphone. That is what this is really about.
What I said is that it's "Orwellian doublespeak" to use the word "liberty" to describe a scheme where you've set restrictions on how I can use and distribute something.
I used to think it was foolish to use "liberty" in the context of the GPL too, but actually it is very apt in precisely the way you are stating here. Liberty in the usual sense is mainly the right not to be subjected to physical violence. That's just another way of saying that liberty is a restriction on other people's freedom to attack you. If liberty is about having no restrictions, then liberty in the usual sense is not liberty either. In fact liberty is about a mutual set of limitations that maintain equal rights for everyone. That is exactly what the GPL does too, and it is exactly what you are complaining about. Your complaint is that the GPL is too much like the usual notion of liberty, it's just that you haven't realized what the usual kind of liberty is all about - it's about restrictions on your freedom that ensures the rights of other people. In return those restrictions are also applied to other people, so that you receive the same rights as they do. Restricting you from punching your neighbor in the face does not take away your liberty - it is a requirement for liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
That is exactly what insurance is about - distribute predictable risk at a cost. It is not about the low-risk subsidizing the high-risk. If you want the low-risk to sponsor the at-risk, then what you are talking about is government management of healthcare. Insurance is a red herring in the American health care debate - insurance simply is not about what Americans seem to think it should be about. It's about predicting your actual risk and charging you a fee that is proportional to that risk. So with insurance, many people will face unaffordable fees because their risk is unaffordable. That's what insurance is, it is not about the low-risk sponsoring the high-risk, it is about paying for the removal of whatever risk you actually have, and that price is going to be very high if your risk is very high. Don't blame the insurance companies for being insurance companies. If what you actually want is for the low-risk to sponsor the high-risk people, then you are not talking about insurance, so stop using the word insurance because insurance is not about that. Instead, realize that you are a supporter of government healthcare and go support what you actually believe in.
I agree that Apple's approach allows for a significant security improvement, so you do get some security in return for the restrictions on the device. However, I'm pretty sure that Apple would rather not have any hackers around who jailbreak their iPhone. The whole setup has very practical benefits for all concerned, and for many people those practical benefits make up for the also very real drawbacks.
I have not read the FSF's comments about the Apple SDK, so I won't comment about that. In general the FSF tend to sound like a group of crazy people. I guess they could do with a PR department. However, the reason they sound so crazy is not that what they are saying is wrong, it is because they talk about issues that normal people haven't thought about. They don't care about practical benefits or the convenience of setups such as Apple's, and that makes them seem impractical. They only care about a decades or centuries long perspective on how technology is going to influence society, and in particular they point to how things can go very wrong, and who might bring about such a world. So they end up talking about big software companies like Apple and Microsoft as their "enemies", which make them sound crazy. However, if you take their long-view perspective, their concerns are not unfounded. They talk about "enemies" because these companies are moving the world in the direction of what the FSF fears, both technologically and in terms of influencing legislation.
The iPhone situation today is not much of a problem - just don't buy an iPhone if you don't like, easy. Imagine a world where every device works like that, and there is a central body that has to approve you just for you to have the legal right to own a decompiler, a compiler or even a device that runs code not compiled by a legally certified software developer. The future's Fahrenheit 451 may not be burning of books, it may be that all the disapproved-of books vanish one day when it is retired from electronic devices because they are all locked down and out of your control so you can't get a device that will store an outlawed book, or if you are a developer with outlawed information on your unlocked device, you'll lose your legal license to own such devices. With that in mind it suddenly makes sense when the FSF speak of "software freedoms". Amazon has already retired already-sold books from people's Kindles without people having any way of stopping it, something the FSF was talking about more than 10 years ago before there were ebook readers of any kind. I don't think the FSF's perspective is the only perspective that makes sense, but I'm very glad that someone out there is taking such a perspective, and the FSF is the only game in town for that. It sounds crazy because their perspective is novel, because it is impractical if you just want to get on with your work right now, because people without a certain level of technological expertise can't understand the issues and it's not something you'll hear in the press.
I don't think Apple are breaking the GPL 3 either since, as far as I know, they do not distribute any GPL 3 software preloaded on their iPhones. It is debatable if it is in the spirit of the GPL that you should be able to actually run the software you modified on the hardware you got it with, or if it is enough that you can just modify the source.
Now I slight variant is, "I want to self sign my applications". OK you can do that but you need to register with the signing authority. They charge for that, its called buying the iOS SDK. Otherwise how do they know who you are?
Thanks for explaining the scheme used. If they want to keep that scheme, then that is fine, it is just that then they are unable to comply by the GPL 3 for preloaded applications and so cannot preload such applications. Of course, if they actually wanted to do so they would just give you a way to self-sign at no cost. They don't want to do that for the same reason that they don't want people to jailbreak their phones - they want to protect the iPhone you bought from being used by you in a way they don't like. A main activity they don't like you to use your iPhone for is buying apps from someone other than them, except if you give them money anyway. So I don't think we'll ever see preloaded GPL 3 software on an iPhone or similarly restricted devices.
As for why the tivoization clause has no bite, it may be as you say that they just didn't think about it. I doubt that, though, as the FSF usually predict very accurately what bad things are coming 20 years or more before they happen. It may have been that they got a lot of bad press on the tivoization clause, as they did, and then they toned it down. I don't know. Perhaps we are misreading it.
So you want a power grid with the reliability of twitter?
An American can dream... :(
Thinking this through another way. Your end user is saying they will only trust Apple to confirm developer identities. You are paying $99 for a service, Apple to confirm to your end users that you are who you say you are. I don't think the GPL prohibits paying for additional services.
In this situation it would not be *my* rights that were in question, it would be the right of the end users to themselves modify my software and then have that modified software run on their own iPhone. So *I* wouldn't be paying 100$ to Apple, my end users would be, in order for them to exercise their right to modify and then run my GPL 3 software. Though this would only come up if Apple preloads the software, apparently.
Suppose I'm a user who buys an iPhone with GPL 3 Samba preloaded on it (which I cannot do since Apple does not include Samba on the iPhone, but suppose). Then we have looked at a clause of the GPL 3 that says that Apple must provide me all the "installation information" if I request it. The installation information includes any keys necessary for me to install modified versions of Samba on my iPhone. So I can demand of Apple that they provide me such a key, even if I have no intention of using it or compiling anything (so I don't already have an SDK, or perhaps I intend to compile on a non-Apple compiler). Then Apple responds that they make the key available, but only as part of the SDK, and I'm free to buy the SDK at 100$. What I'm saying is that that does not fulfill Apple's GPL 3 obligations that they would take on as part of preloading Samba, because I asked them for the key that the GPL 3 says I can demand of them, and they said "we will give the installation information to you, but only if you pay us 100$ first". This clause of the GPL 3 exactly states that that is not OK:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License [...]
The GPL 3 grants me the right to demand installation information in certain circumstances. When those circumstances apply, then I cannot be charged anything when I exercise the right of demanding the installation information. What I'm demanding is not a copy of the SDK, I'm demanding the installation information and part of the installation information is a key. So Apple would not have to provide me a compiler or the SDK, but they would have to provide me a key.
It seems that the GPL 3 is full of holes with respect to the anti-tivoization clause, so yeah, perhaps just deferring installation of the software until the first time the user logs on to the internet is sufficient to by-pass that clause entirely. However, depending on how it is done, it may be possible to argue that in some cases the deferred software was in fact bought as part of the same transaction where the iPhone was bought even if the actual installation is deferred. For such an argument to go through, it would probably be necessary for the iPhone to be a useful piece of technology in some way even without the extra, deferred software. Of course, if only the GPL 3 parts of the software were deferred, than that condition should be satisfied. I now think that the anti-tivoization clause is almost worthless at doing what it were intended to do, and I don't really understand how that can be true since the GPL 3 was heavily scrutinized before it was finalized. It seems to me that if Apple does not like GPL 3 on non-preloaded software, it is probably more to do with the patent part of the GPL 3 that says you can't sue someone for patent infringement if you yourself gave them the GPL 3 software that you are suing them for using. So I changed my mind on that account.
So if the GPL 3 says I can get a key, I must be given the key at no charge, even if I have no plans to compile anything.
The catch is that's not a right granted under the license. Its simply a mechanism of installation. The iOS SDK / iTunes is the mechanism by which you install custom software. The GPL isn't granting you the right to do that, you already had that right.
The quote is clear: If Apple preloads GPL 3 software, then they must also provide me keys without imposing any additional conditions such as requiring a separate payment for giving me the key so that I can modify the software. That would not be true without the GPL 3, as then it is allowed for them to sell the iPhone without keys exactly as they are in fact doing now. An offer to provide a key later for a fee is irrelevant as the GPL 3 does not allow for a fee when it comes to fulfilling that obligation. I would not otherwise have the right to tell Apple "you must provide me keys now without any conditions such as a payment."
Then everyone would get the iPad with a bunch of software. If they wanted anymore software they would need to install it via. the SDK/ iTunes. Everyone just has to know someone who pays a $99 / yr fee for the right to create and install their own software. Your hangup is that you keep trying to conjoin Apple as a maker of the SDK and Apple as the guys who happen to have one particular slick provisioning file called "The Apple Store".
You still don't understand how it works - if anyone is required by the GPL 3 to give you keys, then they must provide them without a fee, so the existence of an offer to buy keys for 100$ simply does not have any relevance when it comes to satisfying the GPL 3 - a for-a-fee key cannot be used to satisfy the GPL 3. The upshot of that is that only Apple can satisfy the requirement of offering keys, at least if they don't want to be paying 100$ to Apple only to then have to pass that key on for free. So if someone wants to sell iPhones along with GPL3 software, then they must give you a key to modify the software if you ask for it, and they must do so for free. If "they" are Apple then Apple must give you the key at no charge, and if "they" are not Apple, they must purchase a key from Apple and then give it to you for free. It is not relevant who made the device in the first place. If someone wants to sell you GPL 3 software separate from the iPhone itself, there seems to be no requirements of keys as the anti-tivoisation clause seems to only apply to pre-loaded software.
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License [...]
So if the GPL 3 says I can get a key, I must be given the key at no charge, even if I have no plans to compile anything. However, this surprised me:
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information.
As far as I can tell this is the only part where the GPL 3 grants rights to keys. However, as far as I can tell, this right is only granted for software purchased together with the device on which the software is run. So if an iPhone came preloaded with GPL 3 software then Apple would have to provide keys. However a straight-forward reading of this certainly suggests that as long as you buy your GPL 3 software in Apple's app-store after you already have an iPhone, then it is fine for Apple to deny you the opportunity to modify the app you bought. That seems very strange - e.g. Tivo can then just first sell you an almost (but not quite) do-nothing Tivo device with no GPL 3 software on it, and then afterwards and separately sell you GPL 3 software that you may install for full functionality, where the Tivo device itself refuses any modified version. This scenario is exactly the same as buying additional functionality in an app-store for the iPhone. If this reading is correct then GPL 3 does not actually resist tivoization, which seems strange to me.
There is no difference between 99 keys and 1 key or for that sake a billion billion keys. A key you pay for is not compatible with the GPL 3 because GLP 3 has language addressing keys and you can't put limitations on them such as requiring payment. The GPL 3 has no language requiring provision of a compiler or a harddisk or a cpu, so no you don't need to provide those. Keys and similar restrictions are special because the GPL 3 make them special. So yes, you can get keys from Apple, but you can't get keys in the way you must be able to to satisfy the GPL 3 - keys without conditions. You can only get a key on the special condition of payment and that's not OK for the GPL 3. I don't understand why you would think that the FSF would make a license with the objective of denying tivoization, but then allow tivo to provide keys at a price of, say, a trillion dollars. Unless you are saying that the GPL 3 has monetary amounts in it that says that 100$ is OK but a trillion dollars is not? I'm not aware of any such provision.
I'm Spartacus too!
That's not what the app store does. It is Apple giving you the binary when you buy things on the Apple app store, so it is their responsibility to actually have the right to distribute those binaries and they would not have that right in the case of GPL 3 software because they won't abide by the GPL 3 terms. If Apple didn't have an app store and just gave developers keys for them themselves to distribute their apps with, then Apple wouldn't acquire GPL liability however then the developers would be breaking the GPL by distributing for the iPhone where they cannot comply with the requirement to hand over the keys. In all cases you can't distribute GPL 3 software for the iPhone because there is no way to acquire the keys. It is not enough that all your customers get a free SDK from you. Those customers must also be able to distribute the software themselves, and so you would have to promise to provide free SDKs for anyone whom your customers give copies to and you can't impose limits on your customers about who they give copies to.
Apple would be violating the license as well, they just wouldn't know it. There is no "B's license" since B has no power to license other than the GPL. It is the same as if you gave me a document with Barack Obama's signature on it giving me all his possessions - I may have the paper, but that gives me no claim on Barack Obama's property because he didn't actually sign it. However it doesn't really matter because what we are discussing is if Apple wants to abide by the terms of the GPL, not if they can be tricked into taking on that responsibility - if they were tricked probably they would stop distribution of the app in question and hope not to get sued over the matter.
It is irrelevant that making a VB compiler is difficult - what matters is that it is possible. The keys in the SDK may serve the purpose you mention if those keys were free, but those keys aren't free. The keys must be handed over unconditionally and requiring payment is an extra condition that the GPL does not allow for - otherwise you could by-pass the GPL entirely by charging a trillion dollars for the keys.
Whoever gives you binaries is bound by the GPL 3, so if you got them from Apple then Apple is bound by the GPL. If you didn't get binaries from Apple, but Apple is making it impossible to meet the conditions of the GPL 3, then whoever gave you those binaries did not have the right to do so since they cannot comply with the GPL 3. As a user you can sue whoever promised you to abide by the GPL 3 but then doesn't, and as a copyright holder you can sue whoever is distributing your code without abiding by the terms that you gave them to do so. This talk of the SDK is a red herring - it has nothing to do with the SDK. It has to do with the keys that you get along with the SDK. I could write my own SDK, but it wouldn't help because what I really need is the keys. The GPL 3 specifically addresses the question of keys. VB has no requirement of keys. You can write your own compiler for VB and your own virtual machine and then you don't need any MS products. There may be patent restrictions on doing so, which the GPL 3 also forbids, but that is a different issue.
Protecting Your Right to Tinker
Tivoization is a dangerous attempt to curtail users' freedom: the right to modify your software will become meaningless if none of your computers let you do it. GPLv3 stops tivoization by requiring the distributor to provide you with whatever information or data is necessary to install modified software on the device. This may be as simple as a set of instructions, or it may include special data such as cryptographic keys or information about how to bypass an integrity check in the hardware. It will depend on how the hardware was designed—but no matter what information you need, you must be able to get it.
This requirement is limited in scope. Distributors are still allowed to use cryptographic keys for any purpose, and they'll only be required to disclose a key if you need it to modify GPLed software on the device they gave you. The GNU Project itself uses GnuPG to prove the integrity of all the software on its FTP site, and measures like that are beneficial to users. GPLv3 does not stop people from using cryptography; we wouldn't want it to. It only stops people from taking away the rights that the license provides you—whether through patent law, technology, or any other means.
If Apple allowed GPL 3 software on the iPhone, then they would have to make it possible for me to change that software on my actual iPhone without any additional conditions. A payment is one such additional condition. You can charge for GPL 3 software, but you can't first deliver it and then require a charge to live up to the requirements of the GPL 3. If the SDK was free and freely redistributable then maybe there wouldn't be an issue, but clearly Apple don't want that since then competitors could set up competing app stores for the iPhone.
That has nothing to do with unlocking.
Thank you, so we agree.
Google sells two products - it sells search for eyeballs and it sells eyeballs for money.
Cool, so I could build my own compiler for the iPhone that unlocks my iPhone and Apple wouldn't act against me?
You missed the non-developer part. You are saying that you can buy something extra to add an option. That does not work to satisfy the GPL.
No cigarette ever comes with exclusion zones.
There is not an exclusion zone in Tokyo either.
The scary contamination in Tokyo is between 0.3% and 1.5% of the radioactive exposure you get from smoking one cigarette. Scary, isn't it?
It's not the level of immediate radioisotope exposure that's the problem, it's that the radioisotopes released by this accident accumulate in the body and continue to irradiate you. In particular, radioiodine accumulates quite effectively in the thyroid gland and is radioactive enough to cause serious damage to it.
It also has a half-time of 8 days so it disappears quickly, so it cannot accumulate over a period longer than, say, 10 days. You still don't want it in your body, but low doses are not much of a problem. The highest allowed dose is the lowest level at which anyone has been able to detect any harm coming from it when someone is exposed to that level for an entire year. The people in Tokyo are getting less than that dose and just a few days now.
So a normal iPhone that you buy in a store as a non-developer does not have that option. It's not that I want them to add that option, I'm pointing out that Apple has a loop-hole for them to comply with the GPL. But they don't because then they'd lose control.
That's a very convincing argument you've got there. I wonder why people have to jailbreak their iPhones if Apple actually don't care about locking down the iPhone?
You didn't understand the part where Apple wouldn't really want such a feature to be actually used by Joe Sixpack Apple User, or in fact anyone, so your post itself is irrelevant.
Give the user the option of adding keys that his system will accept in some way that Eve can't make happen without physical access to the system. Make it technical enough that Joe Sixpack can't be prompted to do it by a virus because the instructions will be too complicated. Problem solved. Except it isn't, because signing code isn't just about keeping the user safe, it's about profiting from limiting the options of the user. Apple doesn't want anyone else competing with them on selling apps for the iphone. That is what this is really about.
What I said is that it's "Orwellian doublespeak" to use the word "liberty" to describe a scheme where you've set restrictions on how I can use and distribute something.
I used to think it was foolish to use "liberty" in the context of the GPL too, but actually it is very apt in precisely the way you are stating here. Liberty in the usual sense is mainly the right not to be subjected to physical violence. That's just another way of saying that liberty is a restriction on other people's freedom to attack you. If liberty is about having no restrictions, then liberty in the usual sense is not liberty either. In fact liberty is about a mutual set of limitations that maintain equal rights for everyone. That is exactly what the GPL does too, and it is exactly what you are complaining about. Your complaint is that the GPL is too much like the usual notion of liberty, it's just that you haven't realized what the usual kind of liberty is all about - it's about restrictions on your freedom that ensures the rights of other people. In return those restrictions are also applied to other people, so that you receive the same rights as they do. Restricting you from punching your neighbor in the face does not take away your liberty - it is a requirement for liberty.