I'm sorry, but if you think "the iPhone includes some LGPL components" and "the iPhone ended up with a few LGPL components" differ in any substantial way, you've got some dangerous reading comprehension problems. After addressing that, you might want to read Section 2 of the LGPL to solve your legal liability confusion.
That is not true. If the work is sufficiently independent so as to be considered a different component, it does not need to be released as LGPL per section 2:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. Honestly now, lawyers have been all over Safari and Webkit for the past five years. The partitioning of LGPL code and compliance with its licenses have already been established and accepted by the community. If there was a problem with Apple's development of components, you've had five years to say something about it. As the copyright holders are satisfied with Apple's WebCore and JavascriptCore compliance (and as they are deemed and declared separate components in the Webkit project), there is no violation or even an alleged violation.
That is not true. If the work is sufficiently independent so as to be considered a different component, it does not need to be released as LGPL per section 2:
Honestly now, lawyers have been all over Safari and Webkit for the past five years. The partitioning of LGPL code and compliance with its licenses have already been established and accepted by the community. If there was a problem with Apple's development of components, you've had five years to say something about it. As the copyright holders are satisfied with Apple's Webcore and Javascriptcore compliance, there is no violation or even an alleged violation.
You don't have to call someone a "fanboy" to disagree with them. People who throw around the word "fanboy" left and right in an empty attempt to devalue sound comments are just Ballmeresque, foaming-at-the-mouth trolls.
You can happily criticize Apple and their supporters and engage in disagreements with them without having to resort to "you're a fanboy so your whole thought process is invalid" attacks.
Parent did not label people who disagreed with him "trolls." That title was reserved to a specific, hostile subset of those who disagree.
he minute you turn into a developer and distributor, that's the first time you even have to accept the license! Nonsense. The license is part of the distribution. You have to accept the license to use the software at all, because the developer is sharing the code under that license and under that license alone. What you mean to say is that when you become a distributor is the first time you can potentially violate the license's terms.
I agree that it's about freedoms of the *user*. But you seem to forget that developers aren't criminals whose rights should be taken away. If you replaced all the software licenses in the world with just the GPL, it would not make things more "free." It would completely take away the possibility for developers to control their own code and set the terms for their own work. If you don't use GPL code, you shouldn't be forced to GPL yours, and that's what abolishing these other, supposedly "less free," licenses would accomplish.
At least you're not trying to claim that the GPL is "fair." Fair would involve sharing in kind and require contributions based on the use and benefit of GPL code used. There'd be zero fairness in the GPL for anyone who didn't borrow any "free" GPL code. The GPL shouldn't be pushed on everyone to the exclusion of other licenses. It's really not a difficult concept.
Software doesn't have rights, but let's pretend it does. Where's its right to privacy? Where's its right to choose who gets to use it?
Are you saying my car is enslaved to me because I don't let anyone else use it or even look inside? Is my daughter's private journal enslaved to her because no one in the world has access to it? Is my art gallery enslaved because I only let certain people come in, under certain terms, to enjoy it?
The GPL is just another forced set of shackles. It is not necessarily superior to have software that cannot be "enslaved" just because it sounds like a good human analogy. GPL should never be the only software license in the world, because the number of things it prevents developers from doing is far too great.
If people followed this model, there'd be no privacy at all. Everything you do would have to be perfectly transparent, available to anyone, anytime. People aren't comfortable with that for themselves, so they shouldn't be forced to do the same with their software.
There's a place for the GPL, and it's perfectly fine for GPL software to have the requirements that it does. But it's not universally the best for everyone, it's not perfect, and it's not superior to all other licenses to the point where they should all switch to the GPL. That's all I've been saying from the beginning.
Except you're not restricting freedom of murderers or criminals by this requirement. You're restricting the freedoms of black people because you don't like them or their culture, not because they've done anything wrong. The group of people whose freedom the GPL restricts should have rights too. The whole world should not be GPL'd.
The GPL is not the best license in the world for everyone. It should not replace all other software licenses. If I don't use GPL code at all, I don't want to be forced to released it under the GPL, which is what the RMS zealots insist the only way is. Anyone consciously choosing to use a different licensing model should have that right.
Is a schoolyard "freer" if a bully is allowed to beat up whomever they wish? This is the whole goddamned point. People who choose to use an alternative license are not schoolyard bullies. They are not evil, stupid, or greedy. They made something with their own labor and they don't want it GPL'd. They didn't use any GPL code, and the GPL license is NOT THE ONLY WAY, as the RMS zealots would insist. I am pointing out that there is a place for more than the GPL in the world, something about 35 of you can't get through your thick skulls.
Is the schoolyard "freer" if all the fourth graders have to share their entire lunches with anyone who asked, regardless of how much (if anything) they've been "given" by other grades?
Wrong. All of you GPL nuts keeps insisting that "you can do ANYTHING you want with GPL code; this is more 'free' than licensing some proprietary code." GPL code IS an open invitation to use everything, only they're asking that if you take one bottle of GPL wine or a thousand, you MUST allow anyone else to take as much of your wine as they want.
That's neither free nor fair. GPL code isn't given away from of anything. It can be more restrictive than proprietary code because of that viral nature. It is not the be-all, end-all. Period. It is one perfectly valid option among several other perfectly valid options for software development.
No one is putting a gun to your head and demanding that you use this code, you know. You don't like the terms, don't use the software! That is not the goddamned point. I don't know how many times it has to be said to you thickheaded fools, but I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TERMS OF THE GPL. They're free to have that license and all of its restrictions, and that is perfectly acceptable. The problem, as my post clearly states to anyone with half a brain, is the "join us or die" approach that the moronic zealots take to alternative licensing arrangements. The GPL is fine. So are closed-source licenses. They are both valid, appropriate, fair licensing terms and should be allowed freely. The RMS zealots should not care if someone who doesn't use GPL code chooses a different license. Instead, they throw their weight around and attack and intimidate anyone who chooses to use different tools and different licenses.
No it's not. "Socialized" does not require Socialism. It doesn't mean "public ownership." It means "group ownership."
What is clear is that both are more free than closed-source code. For certain groups. The groups whose freedoms you take away in the exchange ARE NOT CRIMINALS OR DESPOTS, which has been the whole fracking point.
As the second comment on the posting, I fail to see how this can be -1 redundant. But it just goes to show that it depends which moderators get a hold of the comments. The RMS zealots are playing directly into the role they're modding me down for. So much for "moderation isn't about what you personally believe."
It does if you use glibc, and the LGPL still requires source code to be provided in a wide array of circumstances--which is the whole crux of this iPhone issue and the SWsoft whining a few days ago, and the Webcore issue a few months back. These are all LGPL licenses involving source code releases.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's not just the "free" software that you have to extend that right to, it's your own, independent work in far too many cases. It's the viral nature of the GPL, and it's not a fantasy.
Being required to pass on the free software that you used with the right to do as they please is one thing, but the GPL requires that you pass on the whole farm in all sorts of situations. It's the GPL dictating what you can do with your own work simply because it touched some GPL'd code.
I'm afraid the concept of "libre" is incompatible with the idea of restrictions. Again, I'm not opposed to the license or its terms. I'm opposed to the notion that it is the only way to do things, and that everyone else should burn in hell for not agreeing in the divine perfection of the GPL for everyone.
Just witness the moderation on this discussion. Every person who has said anything negative about the GPL or RMS has been modded, in some part, troll and/or flamebait, despite being neither. The moderation is simply proving my point.
RMS and his zealot followers (this does not include all supporters of the GPL, all open source supporters, or all Slashdotters) are 100% intolerant of anyone who does not agree with his interpretation of "freedom" or who thinks there is room for more than one solution to software licensing for different people and purposes.
Which is it?
Nope, you can still use the code to do whatever you want.
You just lose the right to restrict someone else's freedom to do absolutely anything they want. You can't do whatever you want and simultaneously lose the right to do something. These are mutually exclusive conditions.
There's no lack of understanding. Calling a product "free" when all it does is leverage a different balance of power is misleading. The Latin "libre" does not apply here, because it's not freedom at all. It's not universally applied.
Empowering the end user doesn't make the software "free." It does precisely as you claim: it takes power away from one group and transfers it to someone else. If in every political thread on Slashdot, the groupthink mods up comments that government restrictions aren't "freedom" because they artificially change the balance of power (you know, the usual Libertarian railing against Democrats)...then how is this freedom, when it does exactly the same thing?
Either guaranteeing freedom for all through artificial controls IS freedom (price controls, income redistribution, gun control, RMS), in which case political popular opinion here is completely wrong, or artificial mechanisms AREN't freedom, in which case "free" software isn't free at all. You can't have both.
Personally, I have no problem with any of the artificial constraints, anywhere. But I don't walk around claiming that I'm free (as in libre, like the GPL is claimed). I accept that it's a compromise, and not a flawless one. Should be the same with the GPL, but it is worshipped and anyone who doesn't believe in its divine perfection is burned at the stake. That's not right, and it's certainly not free. RMS zealots are completely intolerant of everything else. It's insane.
I never said that the FSF made any accusations regarding Apple's product. Further, I agree with your assessment of TFA. I said it was a crappy, misleading Slashdot story.
Yep. The code's machine-readable without them, it's simply not in the preferred form, so no comments means it's not fully complying with the expectations of the LGPL. When you can admit that the LGPL doesn't mandate how long developers have to release code per 6(c), I'll consider giving you that "preferred form" does not require commenting.
But as long as you refuse to abide by the text of the actual license and insist that the license is bound by "what seems reasonable to me as an individual, Whiney Mac Fanboy" then I'll have to maintain that the "preferred form" comprises following good coding practices, as clearly evidenced by the preferences of all major open source projects and programmers for proper formatting, commenting, and reasonable naming. This is a far stronger case than your standing on empty legal deduction.
SWsoft issued a statement declaring they fully comply with the LGPL and violated nothing. The Wine folks have not said otherwise, and have quietly dropped the issue. There's no support in the text of the LGPL for your conclusion. Even the source you provided admitted that there are no requirements in the LGPL.
The LGPL exists specifically to ALLOW proprietary products to use certain GPL libraries. It therefore can't be anti-proprietary, which is the same thing as anti-lockdown, which is the same thing as anti-anti-freedom.
Looks like the product has ended up with a few GPL and LSPL components after all. Well you don't say, Sherlock! I guess "includes some LGPL components" escaped your keen observation. However, "started with" and "ended up with" are not the same, unlike your other three terms.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, Freedom...to comply with our license terms.
In case you hadn't noticed, it's a license. That means it's inherently restricted. It says you can't withhold source for a few proprietary components simply because you used GPL code somewhere in the project. That's not freedom. That's forced publication.
Apple didn't start with GPL code at all--they started with BSD and proprietary licensed code, better known as OS X. Apple's web browser, Safari, includes some LGPL components based on the KHTML rendering engine. The LGPL isn't anti-proprietary, anti-lockdown, or anti-anti-freedom.
As for why they chose to go that route, you can either put a pro-Apple spin on it and say they thought they could take a strong effort and help it out (by providing substantial code improvements, increased manpower and QA testing, and higher market penetration by leveraging OS X's greater market share than KHTML browsers before it) or you could take an anti-Apple stance and say they were lazy and didn't want to start from scratch. Even if you go that route, the "collateral damage" of Apple sloth has a net benefit on the project and the community, based on KHTML rendering improvements, Acid2 compliance, and growing the platform installed base.
Either way, the LGPL code in the iPhone is just as carefully contained as it is on current Macs (Webkit itself is under a BSD license, with only a few components LGPL'd), and the article is just capitalizing on iPhone hype.
If indeed RMS is a blowhard jackass, what does that say about a company which chooses to use code originally licensed under the GPL which said jackass created, in order to spread software freedom? Nothing at all. RMS created the license, not the software, and it's not about "spreading freedom" in the slightest. It's about spreading software socialism and quid pro quo.
There's nothing wrong with that, but RMS takes a very "come with us or burn at the stake" approach to it. If he really wanted to spread software freedom, he'd be peddling public domain code. RMS doesn't want to give anything away without strings--he wants to pretend to give it away, and then use that as leverage to demand that he be able to appropriate anything of yours, no matter how small or great the benefit of GPL code provided your project.
Oops. I mistakenly assumed a symmetric relationship--i.e. the original developer would be required to release their source for developer consumption in its entirety. On second read, though, I can see how this would be beneficial for "voluntary release" of code, even if they wanted to "black box" certain components.
It certainly is free in different ways, but a lot of that depends on what you need from it. Take, for instance, a proprietary development license scenario--say something written with XCode and Core APIs, since you like Apple examples. You can do whatever you want with Apple's libraries and on the compilers provided. You don't have to share your code with anyone if you don't want to (not even Apple). If you choose to release your code, it can be under whatever terms you want. The proprietary platform and proprietary license are more "free" to that developer than the (L)GPL, but they are more restrictive to secondary developers who want more than the primary developer wants to provide. The GPL tries to "force" the system to prevent what RMS perceives as abuse, attempting to guarantee rights for both the primary developer and secondary developers, but ultimately alienating a lot of primary developers and secondary developers (because of how it works down the chain even on tertiary developers). Like I said, though, (L)GPL is great if its caveats don't get in your way, and generally speaking, it is indeed "more free" than proprietary offerings, from our perspective. But it's not more free from Apple's, so I'm not sure the net balance actually changes from a "universal" standpoint.
I agree that something completely free doesn't require a license--that would be "libre" software. Unfortunately "noone's ever said it was free of restrictions" isn't quite the case, because "libre" has been claimed for the RMS licensing models. It's deceptive, because it's not truly *libre* at all.
It's important to note that I don't disagree with what you're saying, and I don't disagree with the existence of these licenses, or even with the restrictions they impose. I only disagree with the idea that it's intrinsically "THE" solution to writing software, and that anyone who would *choose* to use proprietary tools is a moron or greedy or evil in some other capacity.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but if you think "the iPhone includes some LGPL components" and "the iPhone ended up with a few LGPL components" differ in any substantial way, you've got some dangerous reading comprehension problems. After addressing that, you might want to read Section 2 of the LGPL to solve your legal liability confusion.
Parsing error!
You don't have to call someone a "fanboy" to disagree with them. People who throw around the word "fanboy" left and right in an empty attempt to devalue sound comments are just Ballmeresque, foaming-at-the-mouth trolls.
You can happily criticize Apple and their supporters and engage in disagreements with them without having to resort to "you're a fanboy so your whole thought process is invalid" attacks.
Parent did not label people who disagreed with him "trolls." That title was reserved to a specific, hostile subset of those who disagree.
I agree that it's about freedoms of the *user*. But you seem to forget that developers aren't criminals whose rights should be taken away. If you replaced all the software licenses in the world with just the GPL, it would not make things more "free." It would completely take away the possibility for developers to control their own code and set the terms for their own work. If you don't use GPL code, you shouldn't be forced to GPL yours, and that's what abolishing these other, supposedly "less free," licenses would accomplish.
At least you're not trying to claim that the GPL is "fair." Fair would involve sharing in kind and require contributions based on the use and benefit of GPL code used. There'd be zero fairness in the GPL for anyone who didn't borrow any "free" GPL code. The GPL shouldn't be pushed on everyone to the exclusion of other licenses. It's really not a difficult concept.
Software doesn't have rights, but let's pretend it does. Where's its right to privacy? Where's its right to choose who gets to use it?
Are you saying my car is enslaved to me because I don't let anyone else use it or even look inside? Is my daughter's private journal enslaved to her because no one in the world has access to it? Is my art gallery enslaved because I only let certain people come in, under certain terms, to enjoy it?
The GPL is just another forced set of shackles. It is not necessarily superior to have software that cannot be "enslaved" just because it sounds like a good human analogy. GPL should never be the only software license in the world, because the number of things it prevents developers from doing is far too great.
If people followed this model, there'd be no privacy at all. Everything you do would have to be perfectly transparent, available to anyone, anytime. People aren't comfortable with that for themselves, so they shouldn't be forced to do the same with their software.
There's a place for the GPL, and it's perfectly fine for GPL software to have the requirements that it does. But it's not universally the best for everyone, it's not perfect, and it's not superior to all other licenses to the point where they should all switch to the GPL. That's all I've been saying from the beginning.
Except you're not restricting freedom of murderers or criminals by this requirement. You're restricting the freedoms of black people because you don't like them or their culture, not because they've done anything wrong. The group of people whose freedom the GPL restricts should have rights too. The whole world should not be GPL'd.
The GPL is not the best license in the world for everyone. It should not replace all other software licenses. If I don't use GPL code at all, I don't want to be forced to released it under the GPL, which is what the RMS zealots insist the only way is. Anyone consciously choosing to use a different licensing model should have that right.
Is the schoolyard "freer" if all the fourth graders have to share their entire lunches with anyone who asked, regardless of how much (if anything) they've been "given" by other grades?
Wrong. All of you GPL nuts keeps insisting that "you can do ANYTHING you want with GPL code; this is more 'free' than licensing some proprietary code." GPL code IS an open invitation to use everything, only they're asking that if you take one bottle of GPL wine or a thousand, you MUST allow anyone else to take as much of your wine as they want.
That's neither free nor fair. GPL code isn't given away from of anything. It can be more restrictive than proprietary code because of that viral nature. It is not the be-all, end-all. Period. It is one perfectly valid option among several other perfectly valid options for software development.
What is clear is that both are more free than closed-source code. For certain groups. The groups whose freedoms you take away in the exchange ARE NOT CRIMINALS OR DESPOTS, which has been the whole fracking point.
As the second comment on the posting, I fail to see how this can be -1 redundant. But it just goes to show that it depends which moderators get a hold of the comments. The RMS zealots are playing directly into the role they're modding me down for. So much for "moderation isn't about what you personally believe."
It does if you use glibc, and the LGPL still requires source code to be provided in a wide array of circumstances--which is the whole crux of this iPhone issue and the SWsoft whining a few days ago, and the Webcore issue a few months back. These are all LGPL licenses involving source code releases.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. It's not just the "free" software that you have to extend that right to, it's your own, independent work in far too many cases. It's the viral nature of the GPL, and it's not a fantasy.
Being required to pass on the free software that you used with the right to do as they please is one thing, but the GPL requires that you pass on the whole farm in all sorts of situations. It's the GPL dictating what you can do with your own work simply because it touched some GPL'd code.
I'm afraid the concept of "libre" is incompatible with the idea of restrictions. Again, I'm not opposed to the license or its terms. I'm opposed to the notion that it is the only way to do things, and that everyone else should burn in hell for not agreeing in the divine perfection of the GPL for everyone.
Just witness the moderation on this discussion. Every person who has said anything negative about the GPL or RMS has been modded, in some part, troll and/or flamebait, despite being neither. The moderation is simply proving my point.
RMS and his zealot followers (this does not include all supporters of the GPL, all open source supporters, or all Slashdotters) are 100% intolerant of anyone who does not agree with his interpretation of "freedom" or who thinks there is room for more than one solution to software licensing for different people and purposes.
There's no lack of understanding. Calling a product "free" when all it does is leverage a different balance of power is misleading. The Latin "libre" does not apply here, because it's not freedom at all. It's not universally applied.
Empowering the end user doesn't make the software "free." It does precisely as you claim: it takes power away from one group and transfers it to someone else. If in every political thread on Slashdot, the groupthink mods up comments that government restrictions aren't "freedom" because they artificially change the balance of power (you know, the usual Libertarian railing against Democrats)...then how is this freedom, when it does exactly the same thing?
Either guaranteeing freedom for all through artificial controls IS freedom (price controls, income redistribution, gun control, RMS), in which case political popular opinion here is completely wrong, or artificial mechanisms AREN't freedom, in which case "free" software isn't free at all. You can't have both.
Personally, I have no problem with any of the artificial constraints, anywhere. But I don't walk around claiming that I'm free (as in libre, like the GPL is claimed). I accept that it's a compromise, and not a flawless one. Should be the same with the GPL, but it is worshipped and anyone who doesn't believe in its divine perfection is burned at the stake. That's not right, and it's certainly not free. RMS zealots are completely intolerant of everything else. It's insane.
I never said that the FSF made any accusations regarding Apple's product. Further, I agree with your assessment of TFA. I said it was a crappy, misleading Slashdot story.
Yep. The code's machine-readable without them, it's simply not in the preferred form, so no comments means it's not fully complying with the expectations of the LGPL. When you can admit that the LGPL doesn't mandate how long developers have to release code per 6(c), I'll consider giving you that "preferred form" does not require commenting.
But as long as you refuse to abide by the text of the actual license and insist that the license is bound by "what seems reasonable to me as an individual, Whiney Mac Fanboy" then I'll have to maintain that the "preferred form" comprises following good coding practices, as clearly evidenced by the preferences of all major open source projects and programmers for proper formatting, commenting, and reasonable naming. This is a far stronger case than your standing on empty legal deduction.
SWsoft issued a statement declaring they fully comply with the LGPL and violated nothing. The Wine folks have not said otherwise, and have quietly dropped the issue. There's no support in the text of the LGPL for your conclusion. Even the source you provided admitted that there are no requirements in the LGPL.
In case you hadn't noticed, it's a license. That means it's inherently restricted. It says you can't withhold source for a few proprietary components simply because you used GPL code somewhere in the project. That's not freedom. That's forced publication.
Apple didn't start with GPL code at all--they started with BSD and proprietary licensed code, better known as OS X. Apple's web browser, Safari, includes some LGPL components based on the KHTML rendering engine. The LGPL isn't anti-proprietary, anti-lockdown, or anti-anti-freedom.
As for why they chose to go that route, you can either put a pro-Apple spin on it and say they thought they could take a strong effort and help it out (by providing substantial code improvements, increased manpower and QA testing, and higher market penetration by leveraging OS X's greater market share than KHTML browsers before it) or you could take an anti-Apple stance and say they were lazy and didn't want to start from scratch. Even if you go that route, the "collateral damage" of Apple sloth has a net benefit on the project and the community, based on KHTML rendering improvements, Acid2 compliance, and growing the platform installed base.
Either way, the LGPL code in the iPhone is just as carefully contained as it is on current Macs (Webkit itself is under a BSD license, with only a few components LGPL'd), and the article is just capitalizing on iPhone hype.
There's nothing wrong with that, but RMS takes a very "come with us or burn at the stake" approach to it. If he really wanted to spread software freedom, he'd be peddling public domain code. RMS doesn't want to give anything away without strings--he wants to pretend to give it away, and then use that as leverage to demand that he be able to appropriate anything of yours, no matter how small or great the benefit of GPL code provided your project.
Oops. I mistakenly assumed a symmetric relationship--i.e. the original developer would be required to release their source for developer consumption in its entirety. On second read, though, I can see how this would be beneficial for "voluntary release" of code, even if they wanted to "black box" certain components.
It certainly is free in different ways, but a lot of that depends on what you need from it. Take, for instance, a proprietary development license scenario--say something written with XCode and Core APIs, since you like Apple examples. You can do whatever you want with Apple's libraries and on the compilers provided. You don't have to share your code with anyone if you don't want to (not even Apple). If you choose to release your code, it can be under whatever terms you want. The proprietary platform and proprietary license are more "free" to that developer than the (L)GPL, but they are more restrictive to secondary developers who want more than the primary developer wants to provide. The GPL tries to "force" the system to prevent what RMS perceives as abuse, attempting to guarantee rights for both the primary developer and secondary developers, but ultimately alienating a lot of primary developers and secondary developers (because of how it works down the chain even on tertiary developers). Like I said, though, (L)GPL is great if its caveats don't get in your way, and generally speaking, it is indeed "more free" than proprietary offerings, from our perspective. But it's not more free from Apple's, so I'm not sure the net balance actually changes from a "universal" standpoint. I agree that something completely free doesn't require a license--that would be "libre" software. Unfortunately "noone's ever said it was free of restrictions" isn't quite the case, because "libre" has been claimed for the RMS licensing models. It's deceptive, because it's not truly *libre* at all. It's important to note that I don't disagree with what you're saying, and I don't disagree with the existence of these licenses, or even with the restrictions they impose. I only disagree with the idea that it's intrinsically "THE" solution to writing software, and that anyone who would *choose* to use proprietary tools is a moron or greedy or evil in some other capacity.