2 ms·

That Linux doesn’t itself contain any spyware doesn’t tell me how, in a world where everyone runs Linux, magically spyware would disappear. Android is built on

That Linux doesn’t itself contain any spyware doesn’t tell me how, in a world where everyone runs Linux, magically spyware would disappear. Android is built on Linux. Android-based TVs and phones are sold to consumers every day with spyware preinstalled. So we have broad adoption of GPL software. Spyware is still happening. What’s the next step?

User23 6y ago
Don’t straw man. The comment you’re replying to is referring to using free software exclusively. If you avoid all non-free software, including services that don’t share their source code, then you will not have to deal with any adware or spyware at all if you don’t wish to. You’re really just supporting the FSF’s arguments against non-free software.
- yunohn 6y ago
  Who will fund this entirely free stack you are talking about?
- jameshart 6y ago
  But plot that path out for me. Explain to me how you make a world where the average consumer has access to a spyware free phone and TV because of free software. What societal or legislative or cultural levers do you plan to pull to bring about that utopia? Is the FSF pulling them?
sildur 6y ago
No magic is needed. In a world where everything is free software, almost no spyware would happen. And the "almost" is because nobody can watch everything every time. But the most used software will be thoroughly reviewed.
- jameshart 6y ago
  But we don’t live in that world yet. We live in a world where, on the contrary, companies are able to make products that distribute their spyware and do so by actively exploiting the contributions of free software developers! The Linux devs whose contributions are in android are having their software used to build TVs that spy on people! Is free software advocacy alone actually helping advance a spyware-free world, then?
  - fsflover 6y ago
    No, the eventual goal of the FSF (and Stallman himself) is to make all software free. You cannot achieve this goal at once, you need to make part of the software free first.
crazypython 6y ago
> Android is built on Linux. Android-based TVs and phones are sold to consumers every day with spyware preinstalled. Android is built on GPLv2 Linux. GPLv2 does not protect the user against locked down hardware and firmware. In contrast, GPLv3+ does protect the user. The user does not have the freedom to modify their software on their hardware, so there is much less freedom.
scoutt 6y ago
To be pedantic, Android is under Apache[1] license, not GPL. And the apps you install in Android are (and can be) closed source (most of them). The hypothetical scenario you describe is the one where you build Linux from scratch and you find a spyware. And this, AFAIK, is not happening right now, and one of the reasons is because it's open source and you can build it from the source code. [1]: https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses
- jameshart 6y ago
  Android incorporates a patched GPLv2 Linux kernel, and a stack of other stuff on top of it which includes GPL, LGPL and Apache and other licenses. And a typical android distribution - eg the one installed on a TV - includes a bunch of other software too. And the hypothetical scenario I want is where I buy a TV and it doesn’t contain spyware. It seems that the existence of Linux has, if anything, made that less possible, given that any old hardware company can grab a Linux kernel and shove whatever spyware they want on top of it before selling it to me.
  - EdwardDiego 6y ago
    ...if the Linux kernel was under GPLv3 though, that wouldn't be as easy for them. I haven't quite grokked why Linus decided GPLv3 was bad, but he strikes me as a pragmatist vs. the FSF idealists.
    - pieter_mj 6y ago
      As far as I understood (maybe it was/is on groklaw.net somewhere), Linus didn't care as much about the users. His main concern is the developers, so he doesn't mind the users being tivoized out of their ability to run adapted code.
      - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
        Not so long ago GPLv2 was anathema for corporations, but now they love it due to linux. What's left now is to gradually roll out GPLv3. It's embrace and extend tactics of sorts.
EdwardDiego 6y ago
You can't lump all GPL licenced software into one bucket. GPL <=2 is quite different to GPL 3. Which is why GPL 3 is anathema to many commercial companies. I can pretty much guarantee that none of those "smart" TVs are running GPLv3 code. Hehe, and then there's the Affero licence... https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/

User23 6y ago

Don’t straw man. The comment you’re replying to is referring to using free software exclusively. If you avoid all non-free software, including services that don’t share their source code, then you will not have to deal with any adware or spyware at all if you don’t wish to. You’re really just supporting the FSF’s arguments against non-free software.

yunohn 6y ago
Who will fund this entirely free stack you are talking about?
jameshart 6y ago
But plot that path out for me. Explain to me how you make a world where the average consumer has access to a spyware free phone and TV because of free software. What societal or legislative or cultural levers do you plan to pull to bring about that utopia? Is the FSF pulling them?

sildur 6y ago

No magic is needed. In a world where everything is free software, almost no spyware would happen. And the "almost" is because nobody can watch everything every time. But the most used software will be thoroughly reviewed.

jameshart 6y ago
But we don’t live in that world yet. We live in a world where, on the contrary, companies are able to make products that distribute their spyware and do so by actively exploiting the contributions of free software developers! The Linux devs whose contributions are in android are having their software used to build TVs that spy on people! Is free software advocacy alone actually helping advance a spyware-free world, then?
- fsflover 6y ago
  No, the eventual goal of the FSF (and Stallman himself) is to make all software free. You cannot achieve this goal at once, you need to make part of the software free first.

crazypython 6y ago

> Android is built on Linux. Android-based TVs and phones are sold to consumers every day with spyware preinstalled. Android is built on GPLv2 Linux. GPLv2 does not protect the user against locked down hardware and firmware. In contrast, GPLv3+ does protect the user. The user does not have the freedom to modify their software on their hardware, so there is much less freedom.

scoutt 6y ago

To be pedantic, Android is under Apache[1] license, not GPL. And the apps you install in Android are (and can be) closed source (most of them). The hypothetical scenario you describe is the one where you build Linux from scratch and you find a spyware. And this, AFAIK, is not happening right now, and one of the reasons is because it's open source and you can build it from the source code. [1]: https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses

jameshart 6y ago
Android incorporates a patched GPLv2 Linux kernel, and a stack of other stuff on top of it which includes GPL, LGPL and Apache and other licenses. And a typical android distribution - eg the one installed on a TV - includes a bunch of other software too. And the hypothetical scenario I want is where I buy a TV and it doesn’t contain spyware. It seems that the existence of Linux has, if anything, made that less possible, given that any old hardware company can grab a Linux kernel and shove whatever spyware they want on top of it before selling it to me.
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  ...if the Linux kernel was under GPLv3 though, that wouldn't be as easy for them. I haven't quite grokked why Linus decided GPLv3 was bad, but he strikes me as a pragmatist vs. the FSF idealists.
  - pieter_mj 6y ago
    As far as I understood (maybe it was/is on groklaw.net somewhere), Linus didn't care as much about the users. His main concern is the developers, so he doesn't mind the users being tivoized out of their ability to run adapted code.
    - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      Not so long ago GPLv2 was anathema for corporations, but now they love it due to linux. What's left now is to gradually roll out GPLv3. It's embrace and extend tactics of sorts.

EdwardDiego 6y ago

You can't lump all GPL licenced software into one bucket. GPL <=2 is quite different to GPL 3. Which is why GPL 3 is anathema to many commercial companies. I can pretty much guarantee that none of those "smart" TVs are running GPLv3 code. Hehe, and then there's the Affero licence... https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/