6 ms·

"Part of the motivation is certainly to get away from the GPL requirements of using Linux," Certainly why? I know, in fact, this is pretty much a non-consider

"Part of the motivation is certainly to get away from the GPL requirements of using Linux," Certainly why? I know, in fact, this is pretty much a non-consideration, so i'm really curious what makes you believe it is. In fact, the fuchsia kernel is completely open source, so ... If you were to bug the SFLC/others, you'd see Google is, in fact, quite happy releasing kernel changes, and is pretty much one of the only companies that has either pushed vendors to open source drivers, or, in a number of cases, rewritten proprietary android drivers as open source just so it can release them! However, regardless, even assuming you were right, you end up having to put together a compliance release either way, and it's not like the kernel part of that compliance release is any more difficult than the other software. "That would of course be a disaster for user autonomy and freedom, but why should Google care about that..." This will be shocking, but the kernel people working on fuchsia do, in fact, care about that! If they didn't, they wouldn't have open sourced everything, including the kernel. I'm honestly having a ton of trouble following your logic here. They want to be able to keep stuff proprietary, but have open sourced it since day 1. They want vendors to be able to release proprietary drivers, but those vendors can and already do so for linux? What exactly do you think is different and horrible?

catern 9y ago
Then why is it not licensed under the GPL, like Linux?
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  I'll ask a related question: Why license it under the GPL? What does Google gain? (and what do you gain)
  - oconnor0 9y ago
    You gain the knowledge that a device running Fuchsia is running code that's publicly available.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      Do you though? Google, as the liscenser is free to keep portions of fuschia under lock and key, so that's not really the case.
      - CountSessine 9y ago
        You're really not convincing me that Google's intentions are good. Not licensing under GPL is a clear signal that Google is prioritizing hardware partners' needs over their users. Just like Android.
        joshuamorton 9y ago
        I'm not trying to, I just don't think that using GPL would make them any nobler, except in the eyes of GPL-fanatics.
    - DannyBee 9y ago
      No, you actually don't. You gain knowledge that some of the code is maybe publicly available, just like linux. The rest, however, is often still kept secret, legally or not, and has been since time immemorial. You don't have to take my word for it though, go ask bradley kuhn if he thinks that vendors have a tendency to comply with the GPL for the kernel :)
      - catern 9y ago
        Consider what happens if you're wrong. What happens if the GPL actually is the reason why Linux has such wide open-source hardware support? Then say goodbye to hacking on Fuschia on your own hardware... I'm not willing to take that risk.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  The real answer is because the people involved believe the licenses they are using are even more free. IE they do not subscribe to the FSF's ideology. It's their software, so they get to choose. It's like arguing NetBSD should use the GPL license. As for why it generally doesn't make sense to use the GPL for this: Even the FSF doesn't think GPLv2 is the right license for linux? GPL'ing linux hasn't prevented any of the problems you mention, either in theory or in practice, so why do the same thing and hope for a different result? (If you've never read it, i suggest you go read the various threads where linus, etc explain that in practice, the only approach that works is carrot, not stick) It would be the same for Mozilla or anyone else who got popular enough with GPL software and had lots of vendors and OEMs who used their software. GPL'ing the kernel or not does not change that some people don't follow the rules. You can have them sign it in blood if you want. They'll just work around you or ignore you, as long as there is money to be made. Also, once you are big enough, cutting them off will just attract regulators. In practice, you will not get them to follow the rules by having a "war on gpl violators" any moreso than we have solved the US drug problem by having a "war on drugs". If you (or others here) dream is of an ecosystem where everyone is forced, under pain of death, to follow the GPL, it's pretty unrealistic. It's not what happens now, it will never happen. Rather than pretend that's a realistic way to get people to release source, i'd rather not pretend. i'd rather see something different tried that may have some hope of success.
  - catern 9y ago
    Sure. So why not GPL (v3) it anyway, if the GPL is so ineffective? After all, what you're telling me in your posts is that Google wants vendors to contribute back, but it can't force them. I don't want vendors to be able to create proprietary extensions. You claim Google also doesn't want vendors to create proprietary extensions. So: - If the GPL is effective, why not use it? - If the GPL is ineffective, it can't possibly hurt and at the very least it sends a positive signal. So why not use it? Edit: I'm not sure why you edited your post rather than reply. But I don't think you have really answered my question as it is put here. Is the GPL effective or ineffective? Ineffective, you seem to say. So what's the harm? You claim you care about sources being released. Am I understanding you wrong? Maybe some employees of Google don't like the GPL. But simultaneously they want all driver sources to be released? But simultaneously they think the GPL is ineffective and won't achieve that? Your post doesn't really add up. Could you list the reasons why Google isn't using the GPL for Fuschia as bullet points, or something?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
narrator 9y ago
I'm being paranoid here, but would allowing an Apache license let vendors put custom spyware and DRM into the kernel that they wouldn't have to release the source for?
- DannyBee 9y ago
  In practice: No more or less so than they could do under linux.
  - 43224gg252 9y ago
    How do you figure? I see you keep posting that Linux can run proprietary binary blobs. No one is arguing against this. The argument is that these binary blobs will ship by default inside fuchsia OS and that the creators of fuchsia have chosen a license that has no provisions against this. You can't change the Linux kernel and then close the source and sell it. That's why the GPL is much better for users and other licenses are better for businesses.
    - DannyBee 9y ago
      First, it's already been done. Like, all the time. People already do this with Linux and ship it in user devices. Either you believe such a thing is GPL compliant, in which case, yay, they already could do it. Or you believe they are violators, but nobody has been able to stop them, in which case, that falls into my "in practice, ...". Because in practice, it has not stopped them Either way, nothing has changed :) As for arguably-compliant ways: Because they can already do like nvidia does, and just have the interfaces be in the kernel, GPL that, and then load binary blobs? Also remember, even the company doing something more shady (as far as anyone knows), vmware, was not successfully sued for their kernel GPL violation. So theoretically, they could just drop all pretense and not even do that.
      - unix1 9y ago
        It would be hard to argue the inverse hypothetical outcome, but I do think that licensing (GPLv2) had a significant role in where Linux is today. It is precisely because the license obligates the distributors to share the code that made the whole a better software and a more attractive platform to contribute to. In fact, most contributors, big and small, work with the upstream to streamline their contributions. Having to share the source has worked out well for both programmers (individuals, companies) and end users in the long run. Stating that there are some number of cases of GPL violations that haven't been enforced or are in the gray area is not a logical base for the argument that the idea of having to share the source code should be abandoned. In fact, history shows otherwise - that Linux has had more success (as measured by uptake globally) than any other non-GPL open source kernel ecosystem. Similarly, just because there may be people who can find loopholes in certain well-intended laws and regulations is not a good reason to abandon their intents. Instead, the questions should be - can we keep these intents and fix the loopholes or make the enforcement more straightforward? I think Google could, but maybe it's not in their immediate interests, one of which may be closer to - how do I upgrade the kernel without recompiling that other stuff.
solatic 9y ago
> why? Because cloud providers have started to build their own hardware to eke out performance advantages versus other cloud providers. It's not a far stretch to conclude that Google will prioritize its kernel's development for its proprietary hardware and not have to release any of the secret sauce to the public.
- jhasse 9y ago
  If you aren't distributing the binaries, you don't have to release your changes to GPL software. That's what the AGPL tried to fix.
geofft 9y ago
> If you were to bug the SFLC/others, you'd see Google is, in fact, quite happy releasing kernel changes, and is pretty much one of the only companies that has either pushed vendors to open source drivers, or, in a number of cases, rewritten proprietary android drivers as open source just so it can release them! "Happy" is a funny word though. Google is legally obligated to release kernel changes and legally forbidden from shipping kernels that incorporate other people's GPL-incompatible drivers. It is definitely true that there are other companies who aren't happy to follow the law, from the Allwinners who just don't care to the VMwares who see the law differently to the Samsungs who seemingly honestly didn't realize what the law said. But given that Google is a large, relatively old company based in the US, you can't extrapolate very much from them being willing and even happy to follow the law in a straightforward fashion. It just means they know what the law is. It doesn't mean they like the law, or that they like the situation that caused the law to apply to them. The explanation most consistent with the facts is that Linux being under GPLv2 allowed Google to get Android to market quickly with a robust, portable, well-designed kernel, and the things we like about free software (ability to hack on it and modify it, likelihood of gaining others' improvements) aligned with their business needs at the time, as a new entrant in a difficult market—but that Google, as a company, has no particular idealism regarding strong copyleft. If they want to ship proprietary drivers from other vendors, they can't legally do that with a GPL kernel, and it's implausible to believe that they'll do so anyway and wait to get sued and try to play lawyer games. The simplest path forward is to keep making GPL reimplementations of those drivers for now... and to start making a non-GPL reimplementation of the kernel for the future. If anything, the fact that they have been pushing vendors to open-source their drivers or rewriting proprietary drivers shows just how much they would have a business interest in a Linux-quality kernel that isn't under the GPL.
- tonfa 9y ago
  > "Happy" is a funny word though. Google is legally obligated to release kernel changes and legally forbidden from shipping kernels that incorporate other people's GPL-incompatible drivers. I suppose the OP was also talking about the changes done to improve linux for datacenter workflows, afaik there is no obligation to release the changes there.
coldtea 9y ago
>In fact, the fuchsia kernel is completely open source, so ... That's orthogonal. Open source != GPL (which lots of companies avoid). Or is it GPL too?
- LeoNatan25 9y ago
  It is not. https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/master/kernel/LICENSE https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/master/kernel/LIC...

catern 9y ago

Then why is it not licensed under the GPL, like Linux?

joshuamorton 9y ago
I'll ask a related question: Why license it under the GPL? What does Google gain? (and what do you gain)
- oconnor0 9y ago
  You gain the knowledge that a device running Fuchsia is running code that's publicly available.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    Do you though? Google, as the liscenser is free to keep portions of fuschia under lock and key, so that's not really the case.
    - CountSessine 9y ago
      You're really not convincing me that Google's intentions are good. Not licensing under GPL is a clear signal that Google is prioritizing hardware partners' needs over their users. Just like Android.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        I'm not trying to, I just don't think that using GPL would make them any nobler, except in the eyes of GPL-fanatics.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    No, you actually don't. You gain knowledge that some of the code is maybe publicly available, just like linux. The rest, however, is often still kept secret, legally or not, and has been since time immemorial. You don't have to take my word for it though, go ask bradley kuhn if he thinks that vendors have a tendency to comply with the GPL for the kernel :)
    - catern 9y ago
      Consider what happens if you're wrong. What happens if the GPL actually is the reason why Linux has such wide open-source hardware support? Then say goodbye to hacking on Fuschia on your own hardware... I'm not willing to take that risk.
DannyBee 9y ago
The real answer is because the people involved believe the licenses they are using are even more free. IE they do not subscribe to the FSF's ideology. It's their software, so they get to choose. It's like arguing NetBSD should use the GPL license. As for why it generally doesn't make sense to use the GPL for this: Even the FSF doesn't think GPLv2 is the right license for linux? GPL'ing linux hasn't prevented any of the problems you mention, either in theory or in practice, so why do the same thing and hope for a different result? (If you've never read it, i suggest you go read the various threads where linus, etc explain that in practice, the only approach that works is carrot, not stick) It would be the same for Mozilla or anyone else who got popular enough with GPL software and had lots of vendors and OEMs who used their software. GPL'ing the kernel or not does not change that some people don't follow the rules. You can have them sign it in blood if you want. They'll just work around you or ignore you, as long as there is money to be made. Also, once you are big enough, cutting them off will just attract regulators. In practice, you will not get them to follow the rules by having a "war on gpl violators" any moreso than we have solved the US drug problem by having a "war on drugs". If you (or others here) dream is of an ecosystem where everyone is forced, under pain of death, to follow the GPL, it's pretty unrealistic. It's not what happens now, it will never happen. Rather than pretend that's a realistic way to get people to release source, i'd rather not pretend. i'd rather see something different tried that may have some hope of success.
- catern 9y ago
  Sure. So why not GPL (v3) it anyway, if the GPL is so ineffective? After all, what you're telling me in your posts is that Google wants vendors to contribute back, but it can't force them. I don't want vendors to be able to create proprietary extensions. You claim Google also doesn't want vendors to create proprietary extensions. So: - If the GPL is effective, why not use it? - If the GPL is ineffective, it can't possibly hurt and at the very least it sends a positive signal. So why not use it? Edit: I'm not sure why you edited your post rather than reply. But I don't think you have really answered my question as it is put here. Is the GPL effective or ineffective? Ineffective, you seem to say. So what's the harm? You claim you care about sources being released. Am I understanding you wrong? Maybe some employees of Google don't like the GPL. But simultaneously they want all driver sources to be released? But simultaneously they think the GPL is ineffective and won't achieve that? Your post doesn't really add up. Could you list the reasons why Google isn't using the GPL for Fuschia as bullet points, or something?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

narrator 9y ago

I'm being paranoid here, but would allowing an Apache license let vendors put custom spyware and DRM into the kernel that they wouldn't have to release the source for?

DannyBee 9y ago
In practice: No more or less so than they could do under linux.
- 43224gg252 9y ago
  How do you figure? I see you keep posting that Linux can run proprietary binary blobs. No one is arguing against this. The argument is that these binary blobs will ship by default inside fuchsia OS and that the creators of fuchsia have chosen a license that has no provisions against this. You can't change the Linux kernel and then close the source and sell it. That's why the GPL is much better for users and other licenses are better for businesses.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    First, it's already been done. Like, all the time. People already do this with Linux and ship it in user devices. Either you believe such a thing is GPL compliant, in which case, yay, they already could do it. Or you believe they are violators, but nobody has been able to stop them, in which case, that falls into my "in practice, ...". Because in practice, it has not stopped them Either way, nothing has changed :) As for arguably-compliant ways: Because they can already do like nvidia does, and just have the interfaces be in the kernel, GPL that, and then load binary blobs? Also remember, even the company doing something more shady (as far as anyone knows), vmware, was not successfully sued for their kernel GPL violation. So theoretically, they could just drop all pretense and not even do that.
    - unix1 9y ago
      It would be hard to argue the inverse hypothetical outcome, but I do think that licensing (GPLv2) had a significant role in where Linux is today. It is precisely because the license obligates the distributors to share the code that made the whole a better software and a more attractive platform to contribute to. In fact, most contributors, big and small, work with the upstream to streamline their contributions. Having to share the source has worked out well for both programmers (individuals, companies) and end users in the long run. Stating that there are some number of cases of GPL violations that haven't been enforced or are in the gray area is not a logical base for the argument that the idea of having to share the source code should be abandoned. In fact, history shows otherwise - that Linux has had more success (as measured by uptake globally) than any other non-GPL open source kernel ecosystem. Similarly, just because there may be people who can find loopholes in certain well-intended laws and regulations is not a good reason to abandon their intents. Instead, the questions should be - can we keep these intents and fix the loopholes or make the enforcement more straightforward? I think Google could, but maybe it's not in their immediate interests, one of which may be closer to - how do I upgrade the kernel without recompiling that other stuff.

solatic 9y ago

> why? Because cloud providers have started to build their own hardware to eke out performance advantages versus other cloud providers. It's not a far stretch to conclude that Google will prioritize its kernel's development for its proprietary hardware and not have to release any of the secret sauce to the public.

jhasse 9y ago
If you aren't distributing the binaries, you don't have to release your changes to GPL software. That's what the AGPL tried to fix.

geofft 9y ago

> If you were to bug the SFLC/others, you'd see Google is, in fact, quite happy releasing kernel changes, and is pretty much one of the only companies that has either pushed vendors to open source drivers, or, in a number of cases, rewritten proprietary android drivers as open source just so it can release them! "Happy" is a funny word though. Google is legally obligated to release kernel changes and legally forbidden from shipping kernels that incorporate other people's GPL-incompatible drivers. It is definitely true that there are other companies who aren't happy to follow the law, from the Allwinners who just don't care to the VMwares who see the law differently to the Samsungs who seemingly honestly didn't realize what the law said. But given that Google is a large, relatively old company based in the US, you can't extrapolate very much from them being willing and even happy to follow the law in a straightforward fashion. It just means they know what the law is. It doesn't mean they like the law, or that they like the situation that caused the law to apply to them. The explanation most consistent with the facts is that Linux being under GPLv2 allowed Google to get Android to market quickly with a robust, portable, well-designed kernel, and the things we like about free software (ability to hack on it and modify it, likelihood of gaining others' improvements) aligned with their business needs at the time, as a new entrant in a difficult market—but that Google, as a company, has no particular idealism regarding strong copyleft. If they want to ship proprietary drivers from other vendors, they can't legally do that with a GPL kernel, and it's implausible to believe that they'll do so anyway and wait to get sued and try to play lawyer games. The simplest path forward is to keep making GPL reimplementations of those drivers for now... and to start making a non-GPL reimplementation of the kernel for the future. If anything, the fact that they have been pushing vendors to open-source their drivers or rewriting proprietary drivers shows just how much they would have a business interest in a Linux-quality kernel that isn't under the GPL.

tonfa 9y ago
> "Happy" is a funny word though. Google is legally obligated to release kernel changes and legally forbidden from shipping kernels that incorporate other people's GPL-incompatible drivers. I suppose the OP was also talking about the changes done to improve linux for datacenter workflows, afaik there is no obligation to release the changes there.

coldtea 9y ago

>In fact, the fuchsia kernel is completely open source, so ... That's orthogonal. Open source != GPL (which lots of companies avoid). Or is it GPL too?

LeoNatan25 9y ago
It is not. https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/master/kernel/LICENSE https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/master/kernel/LIC...