5 ms·
Without wanting to start too much of a holy war, this is exactly why I prefer the GPL over BSD variants. The GPL takes ESR's argument in this blog post to its n
by corford 14y ago
Without wanting to start too much of a holy war, this is exactly why I prefer the GPL over BSD variants. The GPL takes ESR's argument in this blog post to its natural conclusion. The only way you (the user) can be completely free is if the code is forced to stay open. There's no other way around it.
Even if Cisco's firmware blob consisted entirely of compiled open source code, if it was all BSD licensed you'd still be no better off.
- jiggy2011 14y agoThis really depends on how difficult it is to replace the firmware. On a consumer linksys router for example, this is a very simple process.
- lukeschlather 14y agoThe GPL is the reason it's easy to replace the firmware on a consumer router. If the GNU userspace tools were BSD licensed then DDWRT, OpenWRT and Tomato would not exist. It's actually one of the best examples of the GPL's power to allow people to do use their devices to their fullest potential.
- mxey 14y agoI don't see the connection. The Linux kernel being under GPL means manufacturers had to release source code for their devices. Where does the userspace come in? Do OpenWRT and the like even use GNU userspace tools? I would assume they use Busybox.
- saurik 14y agoWell, BusyBox also happens to be GPL. ;P (Also, it should be noted that GPLv3 requires the user not only to have the source code for the software on the device, but the ability to change the software running on the actual shipped device.)
- lukeschlather 14y agoThey use the GNU C Library. After a bit of Googling I'm not entirely sure what forced Linksys to open source the code, but it was definitely more than just Linux.
- einhverfr 14y agoOTOH, what's to stop Cisco's firmware blob from including all sorts of GPL'd software, died together by a proprietary program? And it's not like BSD licenses lack ways of encouraging contribution back either. I just don't see the choice between these licenses as important as quality of software and pace of development in ensuring customer freedom.
- praptak 14y ago> OTOH, what's to stop Cisco's firmware blob from including all sorts of GPL'd software, died together by a proprietary program? I assume that you mean officially GPL'd, not secretly incorporated by Cisco (although this type of abuse also gets detected.) GPLv3 forbids tivoization, so GP would definitely be better off with a router running GPL'd software. With BSD there is nothing preventing the hardware vendor from locking the software away from users.
- einhverfr 14y agoI don't know about that. Let's say the router is running a GPL'd light-weight web server. Just because you can't lock the person out doesn't mean that the component may be effectively replaceable. Otherwise you could never effectively use any GPL v3 software in embedded devices unless you add additional update paths.
- corford 14y agoThat's true. It would depend on how deeply (or not) any proprietary software within the blob was linked/derived from the GPL bits. But for encouraging contribution, if a company goes "rogue", the BSD has no real teeth to force them to give anything back. I largely agree with your last point though. Good old fashioned competition should normally be enough to ensure the user gets a good deal (providing regulators are doing their job and there are no cartels or monopolies).
- einhverfr 14y agoBSD contribution is based on a quid quo pro regarding future contributions. It is just more flexible in this than the GPL is. Consider PostgreSQL for example. Several of the main contributors also release proprietary versions. But they contribute to lower the costs of code maintenance.