6 ms·

The FSF does not consider the closed software modifications shipped by vendors to be free software. Android is essentially a free-software project with many clo

The FSF does not consider the closed software modifications shipped by vendors to be free software. Android is essentially a free-software project with many closed-source forks. The typical Android end user is not running free software (except for the copyleft portions where the vendors have no choice).

bad_user 16y ago
The typical Android end user is not running free software This is a social problem -- what Open Source licenses do is to allow you to make forks in case you're unhappy with the way the project is being managed. If that's not a reasonable advantage and you still depend on the goodwill of the parent company for future versions -- then you're basically saying that open-source / free-software licenses are useless. Which is not true, as there are examples of famous forks available -- see XFree86 / Xorg; although forks don't happen so often because they take a lot of resources and energy, and there has to be enough incentive for a fork to survive.
- fluidcruft 16y ago
  While I agree in principle, you're perhaps glossing over the wave of handset TiVoization that is being championed by Motorola and now is spreading to HTC and others under the whitewash of "protecting the end-users". This prevents anyone except the manufacturer from updating or modifying even the most significant copyleft portions of Android (the kernel). Availability of free software is useless in that case. This is one of the "exploitable" weaknesses of GPLv2 that TiVo has pioneered and why GPLv3 was created. So, while yes, the Linux kernel on Motorola's recent phones is GPL free software, it's a moot point because you can't use anything except Motorola's blessed bits.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    I'm going to quote Linus Torvalds on this: """ If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind ... [GPL.v3] crimps the style of mad scientists everywhere by also putting restrictions on the use of the source code. You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version """ Why do you assume that TiVo "exploited" a "weakness", when the software authors of prominent GPLv.2 projects (or other licenses that allow "tivoization") don't think that's the case? What did TiVo did so awful to call it an exploit and market a derogative term after them, trashing their brand? What "exploit" is there when you can make your own phones with Android's software on it? If you, as a software author (working hard on your software) do not want YOUR software to be used in the way TiVo did, then GPL.v3 is fine and has its place in the world certainly, but other than that, what the hell are people smoking?
    - fluidcruft 16y ago
      Linus Torvalds does not represent the FSF and was not involved in the drafting of GPLv2 (he was a complete nobody when GPLv2 was released). Torvalds is also not the only copyright holder to the Linux source. His opinion about what the FSF is trying to achieve through its licensing is immaterial. Combating the wave of machines you "own" but that you can't control, improve or specialize for your own purposes is exactly how the FSF came into existence. In the past manufacturers discouraged tinkerers simply by not releasing their code. The GPL countered this by requiring source code release. Then TiVo innovated use of trusted computing to prevent end user modifications even if you have access to the source. As a response GPLv3 now requires that you are able to actually use modifications. I don't know why you think the FSF's position is ambiguous. If they were happy with TiVo's abuse of their license, they would not have developed GPLv3. To claim that the FSF endorses the bullshit Motorola or TiVo imposes on its customers is ridiculous. TiVo earned the badge.
      - bad_user 16y ago
        The FSF does not represent Linus Tolvards and was not involved in developing the Linux kernel. The FSF is not the only or even the biggest contributor to the open-source pool of software. Their opinion about what the Linux kernel should disallow through its licensing is immaterial. Also, Linus' opinion represents that of the majority of core kernel contributers. This can be checked, based on their mailing list, and based on the growing list of companies sponsoring its development. why you think the FSF's position is ambiguous I do not think they are ambiguous. GPL.v3 is perfectly within their goals and they have been consistent. Their message is also clear and I admire RMS for what he has done. My problem is with all the other people that suddenly discover the virtues of Free Software and consider it within their right to trash other people's work. Unfortunately being negative on the Internet is far too easy. Meritocracy doesn't work. The FSF has the right to bitch and moan about open-source versus free-software. Most other people do not.
        fluidcruft 16y ago
        I think you're confusing the GPL with free software. The GPL doesn't define what is considered free software, it's merely expression of the enumerated freedoms. What TiVo and Motorola do is incompatible with the freedoms (specifically, freedom 1). The fact that GPLv2 allowed the software to be used inappropriately was a licensing defect. Most manufacturers aren't customer-hating assholes. TiVo and Motorola are. I am a customer of both and I will continue to warn others about their bullshit. It's entirely within their own power to change this. The part about Torvald's opinion about TiVoization that you are neglecting is that he believes the market will punish this behavior. He does not glowingly endorse this behavior. He merely tolerates it.

bad_user 16y ago

The typical Android end user is not running free software This is a social problem -- what Open Source licenses do is to allow you to make forks in case you're unhappy with the way the project is being managed. If that's not a reasonable advantage and you still depend on the goodwill of the parent company for future versions -- then you're basically saying that open-source / free-software licenses are useless. Which is not true, as there are examples of famous forks available -- see XFree86 / Xorg; although forks don't happen so often because they take a lot of resources and energy, and there has to be enough incentive for a fork to survive.

fluidcruft 16y ago
While I agree in principle, you're perhaps glossing over the wave of handset TiVoization that is being championed by Motorola and now is spreading to HTC and others under the whitewash of "protecting the end-users". This prevents anyone except the manufacturer from updating or modifying even the most significant copyleft portions of Android (the kernel). Availability of free software is useless in that case. This is one of the "exploitable" weaknesses of GPLv2 that TiVo has pioneered and why GPLv3 was created. So, while yes, the Linux kernel on Motorola's recent phones is GPL free software, it's a moot point because you can't use anything except Motorola's blessed bits.
- bad_user 16y ago
  I'm going to quote Linus Torvalds on this: """ If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind ... [GPL.v3] crimps the style of mad scientists everywhere by also putting restrictions on the use of the source code. You cannot install it on your hardware (laser-equipped shark or otherwise) without also making sure that others can install another version """ Why do you assume that TiVo "exploited" a "weakness", when the software authors of prominent GPLv.2 projects (or other licenses that allow "tivoization") don't think that's the case? What did TiVo did so awful to call it an exploit and market a derogative term after them, trashing their brand? What "exploit" is there when you can make your own phones with Android's software on it? If you, as a software author (working hard on your software) do not want YOUR software to be used in the way TiVo did, then GPL.v3 is fine and has its place in the world certainly, but other than that, what the hell are people smoking?
  - fluidcruft 16y ago
    Linus Torvalds does not represent the FSF and was not involved in the drafting of GPLv2 (he was a complete nobody when GPLv2 was released). Torvalds is also not the only copyright holder to the Linux source. His opinion about what the FSF is trying to achieve through its licensing is immaterial. Combating the wave of machines you "own" but that you can't control, improve or specialize for your own purposes is exactly how the FSF came into existence. In the past manufacturers discouraged tinkerers simply by not releasing their code. The GPL countered this by requiring source code release. Then TiVo innovated use of trusted computing to prevent end user modifications even if you have access to the source. As a response GPLv3 now requires that you are able to actually use modifications. I don't know why you think the FSF's position is ambiguous. If they were happy with TiVo's abuse of their license, they would not have developed GPLv3. To claim that the FSF endorses the bullshit Motorola or TiVo imposes on its customers is ridiculous. TiVo earned the badge.
    - bad_user 16y ago
      The FSF does not represent Linus Tolvards and was not involved in developing the Linux kernel. The FSF is not the only or even the biggest contributor to the open-source pool of software. Their opinion about what the Linux kernel should disallow through its licensing is immaterial. Also, Linus' opinion represents that of the majority of core kernel contributers. This can be checked, based on their mailing list, and based on the growing list of companies sponsoring its development. why you think the FSF's position is ambiguous I do not think they are ambiguous. GPL.v3 is perfectly within their goals and they have been consistent. Their message is also clear and I admire RMS for what he has done. My problem is with all the other people that suddenly discover the virtues of Free Software and consider it within their right to trash other people's work. Unfortunately being negative on the Internet is far too easy. Meritocracy doesn't work. The FSF has the right to bitch and moan about open-source versus free-software. Most other people do not.
      - fluidcruft 16y ago
        I think you're confusing the GPL with free software. The GPL doesn't define what is considered free software, it's merely expression of the enumerated freedoms. What TiVo and Motorola do is incompatible with the freedoms (specifically, freedom 1). The fact that GPLv2 allowed the software to be used inappropriately was a licensing defect. Most manufacturers aren't customer-hating assholes. TiVo and Motorola are. I am a customer of both and I will continue to warn others about their bullshit. It's entirely within their own power to change this. The part about Torvald's opinion about TiVoization that you are neglecting is that he believes the market will punish this behavior. He does not glowingly endorse this behavior. He merely tolerates it.