Apple could allow a mechanism for the user to install updates to the LGPL portions [my emphasis]
If I'm interpreting the LGPL 2.1 correctly, and if the iPhone includes LGPL libraries then Apple must allow people to update the LGPL libraries.
And, if Apple do that then the iPhone becomes a programmable device.
When you've seen proof that Apple intends to violate this, let me know.
I neither know nor care whether Apple has any intention of violating anything. I'm just pointing out an interesting consequence of the license (as I understand it). This seems to have got some kinds of people all excited.
Yes, but it falls under the same umbrella as Tivoization - you may relink the software, to run on some other hardware but you've got no promise it'll run on your iPhone any more than your custom kernel will run on your Tivo.
Depends how one interprets:
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.
The LGPL doesn't say that Apple have to release updates, it says that the user has the right to update the software with new versions of the LGPL software.
"You don't want your computer to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the Internet, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cox doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."
*BUT* you can't actually upload the newly produced firmware, because the iPhone is DRMed to the bone with Trusted Computing chips, and as such does only run signed and crypted code. The DRM architecture in the iPhone takes away your freedom as an end user to play around with FLOSS inside the firmware.
And how is this not in breach of section 6 of the LGPL 2.1?
[...] For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.
Seems to me that "data" includes their signing keys:-)
5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.
So if the iPhone contains LGPL code the non-LGPL parts are covered by section 6:
6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.
You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:
* a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
* b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
* c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.
* d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified materials from the same place.
* e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. [...]
1. The IMEI can be changed with the right software.
2. Many (most?) stolen phones are immediately sent to third world countries, and it's not in the interest of the local operators to disable them - their business plan rests on the availability of cheap (stolen) phones.
Its possible that SWSoft's developers are having to spoon-feed their managers and legal team the terms of the LGPL so they get the problem.
In which case those developpers are open to a whole world of hurt - they've exposed the company for which they work to possibly major legal problems. At the least they're unemployed - at the worst they'll have their own day in court.
Here's a question: Does this protect from a certain bullshit kind of Tivo-ization, where the library is loaded dynamically by the program, but only after the program runs a checksum on the library?
Yes.
If your app is linked against LGPL code you must allow your users to link against another version of the LGPL code:
4. Combined Works.
You may convey a Combined Work [...] if you also do each of the following: [...] d) Do one of the following: [...]
* 1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version.
So, how come "100% substandard care" gets a better outcome that "30% substandard care"?
And you do know that the US spends a larger percentage of it's GDP on health care than the UK? Your scary figures about how much the NHS costs are peanuts compared to the US health care costs.
So, get an E90. Same hardware platform as the N95, with a qwerty keyboard and an 800x352 pixel screen. Some people claim the E90 can take SDHC cards, so you can get 4Gb now, and more later.
The most effective add-on we added during the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War was one thing - smart dumb bombs - little JATO add-ons that cost $1000 to $2000 extra and turned a $500 dumb bomb into a guided smart bomb, more effective than a $1 million cruise missile with more explosive payload, and much more accurate.
Assuming you're talking about JDAM it's just little wiggly fins, not JATO units (rockets), and they're cheap by military standards, but come in around $14,000 each rather than $1000-$2000. A dumb bomb is probably a bit more than $500 for that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
- If I'm interpreting the LGPL 2.1 correctly, and if the iPhone includes LGPL libraries then Apple must allow people to update the LGPL libraries.
- And, if Apple do that then the iPhone becomes a programmable device.
I neither know nor care whether Apple has any intention of violating anything. I'm just pointing out an interesting consequence of the license (as I understand it). This seems to have got some kinds of people all excited.Depends how one interprets:
Well, I did say "if the iPhone includes..."
c id=19728215 the "Settings/About" option lists the licenses for the included software, and includes the LGPL.
According to http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=244627&
The LGPL doesn't say that Apple have to release updates, it says that the user has the right to update the software with new versions of the LGPL software.
Uh, Apple don't use Linux - they use Mach and BSD.
What a prat.
And how is this not in breach of section 6 of the LGPL 2.1?
Seems to me that "data" includes their signing keys
Yes, but we're talking about LGPL, not GPL, and the LGPL says you must let the user re-link.
LGPL V2.1 imposes the same "user must be allowed to re-link" condition that LGPL V3 does - it's its whole raison-d'être.
So if the iPhone contains LGPL code the non-LGPL parts are covered by section 6:
If they're using LGPL'd code in the iPhone they must allow the owner to re-link his iPhone against new versions of the LGPL'd code.
I.E. The iPhone becomes a programmable platform.
Problem is, it doesn't work:
1. The IMEI can be changed with the right software.
2. Many (most?) stolen phones are immediately sent to third world countries, and it's not in the interest of the local operators to disable them - their business plan rests on the availability of cheap (stolen) phones.
In which case those developpers are open to a whole world of hurt - they've exposed the company for which they work to possibly major legal problems. At the least they're unemployed - at the worst they'll have their own day in court.
Yes.
If your app is linked against LGPL code you must allow your users to link against another version of the LGPL code:
He confuses "manor" with "manner" and you're picking on "ripe" vs "rife"?
So, how come "100% substandard care" gets a better outcome that "30% substandard care"?
And you do know that the US spends a larger percentage of it's GDP on health care than the UK? Your scary figures about how much the NHS costs are peanuts compared to the US health care costs.
What is this "costly" universal, tax-funded, government-managed public healthcare system of which you speak?
"universal, tax-funded, government-managed public healthcare systems" are much cheaper than the American system.
Yeah the guy was asking for open source authors. What open source has ESR written?
Your in Belgium and you thing people drive badly in Paris?
Or does it need flash?
Yup, the smart is obviously designed to be parked on the only part of the street with no other cars - the pedestrian crossing.
So, get an E90. Same hardware platform as the N95, with a qwerty keyboard and an 800x352 pixel screen. Some people claim the E90 can take SDHC cards, so you can get 4Gb now, and more later.
Stick it in your ear!
And the reason for that is that Cisco have the most expensive memory in the universe.
Assuming you're talking about JDAM it's just little wiggly fins, not JATO units (rockets), and they're cheap by military standards, but come in around $14,000 each rather than $1000-$2000. A dumb bomb is probably a bit more than $500 for that matter.