4 ms·

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 hypothetica

by 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.
      - lupire 6y ago
        Corporations love GPLv2 because they get free code, not because of Linux.
  - lupire 6y ago
    Linus cares about his users (GPLv2). RMS cares about all the users (GPLv3). Linux just wants anyone who changes the code to contribute back. He doesn't care how they exploit the software he gives them.
- scoutt 6y ago
  > Android incorporates a patched GPLv2 Linux kernel. This has nothing to do with "So we have broad adoption of GPL software". Android (AOSP) is Apache. We don't have "broad adoption of GPL software". This scenario doesn't exist. If the software of the TV is GPLv2, you must have access to the source code (even with Apache this can happen to some extent). The TV manufacturer must give you the source code of the software running on the TV (with GPLv3 they should also guarantee that you can re-flash your devices). This of course is an ideal world, and it's the freedom FSF searches for. This way, you (or someone else) can audit the source code and check for spywares. You might be able to rebuild and reflash the software. Unfortunately not everything is open source. On Linux you have (for example) NVIDIA drivers that are closed source. You can put a spyware in there, even if Linux is GPLv2. EDIT: btw, you first asked "What’s the next step?". I believe the next step is to raise awareness of the rights one has over GPLvX software and to be able to truly enforce those rights. Like if you ask Samsung for the source code of your TV and they don't give it to you, you can (like) go to the nearest police station and press charges.
- kaba0 6y ago
  It’s like arguing that buying quality ingredients for a meal, and fking up the cooking is somehow the mistake of that expensive Italian pasta. Also, you seriously argue that availability of a great kernel is somehow a bad thing??

by scoutt 6y ago

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.
    - lupire 6y ago
      Corporations love GPLv2 because they get free code, not because of Linux.
- lupire 6y ago
  Linus cares about his users (GPLv2). RMS cares about all the users (GPLv3). Linux just wants anyone who changes the code to contribute back. He doesn't care how they exploit the software he gives them.
scoutt 6y ago
> Android incorporates a patched GPLv2 Linux kernel. This has nothing to do with "So we have broad adoption of GPL software". Android (AOSP) is Apache. We don't have "broad adoption of GPL software". This scenario doesn't exist. If the software of the TV is GPLv2, you must have access to the source code (even with Apache this can happen to some extent). The TV manufacturer must give you the source code of the software running on the TV (with GPLv3 they should also guarantee that you can re-flash your devices). This of course is an ideal world, and it's the freedom FSF searches for. This way, you (or someone else) can audit the source code and check for spywares. You might be able to rebuild and reflash the software. Unfortunately not everything is open source. On Linux you have (for example) NVIDIA drivers that are closed source. You can put a spyware in there, even if Linux is GPLv2. EDIT: btw, you first asked "What’s the next step?". I believe the next step is to raise awareness of the rights one has over GPLvX software and to be able to truly enforce those rights. Like if you ask Samsung for the source code of your TV and they don't give it to you, you can (like) go to the nearest police station and press charges.
kaba0 6y ago
It’s like arguing that buying quality ingredients for a meal, and fking up the cooking is somehow the mistake of that expensive Italian pasta. Also, you seriously argue that availability of a great kernel is somehow a bad thing??