4 ms·

Would the world be a better place if Apple weren't allowed to Tivoize the iDevices because all the free software in them were licensed under GPLv3? I'd say yes.

by guelo 13y ago

jevinskie 13y ago
Who is to say all free software developers want to prevent Tivoization? If all developers wanted to prevent that, they would use GPLv3! Clearly many developers like the MIT/BSD licenses. Are you advocating that these developers switch to GPLv3 or... what is your alternative?
- MBCook 13y ago
  Torvalds himself has said that he things Tivoization should be allowed, but many other big kernel developers disagree.
  - belorn 13y ago
    When describing what an other person has said, please do not slim it down to the point where it losses context. What he has said is that he personally don't like DRM, but he thinks it outside the scope of the kernel and a software license (see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/fa.linux.kernel/L5NRD_ONkIk[1-25-false] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/fa.linux.kernel/L5NR...)
    - DenisM 13y ago
      I've seen an interview with Linus when he actually said just that: GPLv2 is about "if you used/changed my code I want to see it", whereas GPLv3 is about "If you used/changed my code I want to play with your hardware", and that he is not in favor of V3 for that reason as he doesn't feel its demands are "justified". So MBCook's statement is fairly accurate, to the best of my memory.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        s/your hardware/hardware you sold me/
        joesb 13y ago
        You are allowed to play with the hardware. You can remove/change chipsets, install anything, take it to skydiving or burn it. Doesn't mean they have to make it easy for you to do it.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        ...that depends on the license. But I'm only here to clarify the very important point about who owns the hardware in question, not to call either license better.
zhemao 13y ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about. You think if the software is GPLv3, Apple won't put restrictions in their hardware in order to be able to shift the software with OSX? More likely they will just not use that software and go write their own (which is, after all, one of the reasons behind their support of the LLVM project in the first place). If all open source software was GPLv3, Apple would ship only proprietary software on their systems, so we'd go from OSX using free software with proprietary modifications, to OSX using completely proprietary software. Hardly much of an improvement.
vvhn 13y ago
What's FreeBSD's adoption of llvm/clang got to do with Apple's non-adoption of GPLv3 ? (Linux is a GPLv3 holdout as well btw). The *BSDs prefer a non-GPL licensed alternative if they can get one.
- egil 13y ago
  Linux is licensed as GPL v2 (only), so a switch to gpl v3 would require concent from all contributors and be practically impossible.
rsynnott 13y ago
What on earth does this have to do with Clang? You realise that Apple adopting GPLv3 GCC wouldn't require all iOS software to be licensed under GPLv3, right?
pilif 13y ago
We can clearly see that since the move to GPL3, Apple is reimplementing a lot of free software previously licensed under GPL2 (I wonder how long the default shell remains outdated bash. I wonder what they will move to). And unlike clang, not all of their replacements are free software. Case in point: their SMB stack. To me this shows that Apple would just not have used (and contributed to) any free software if it was all GPL3. The world would be a worse place. In fact, the world has gotten considerably worse, Apple-wise, when we lost Samba in OSX. The patent clauses in GPL3 make that license completely unsuitable for any company (with cautious lawyers) that owns significant patents. I can really kind if understand Apple here.
- belorn 13y ago
  Just to put it into perspective, the the patent clauses in GPLv3 was initially copied from the apache license almost word for word. The only significant change that FSF did was adding an additional point regarding patent agreements. They describe that: If you have an expressed permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for patent infringement, such agreement is seen as identical as if you were holding the patent yourself. If you are in a company that has significant amount of patents, and who would prefer keeping a patent rather than gaining benefit from free and open source software, then one need to keep an eye on any software one want to distribute that has apache, GPL or any other licenses with a patent clause in them. If you are in a company that has significant amount of patent agreements, then one need to keep an eye on any software one want to distribute that got GPLv3 software in it. Apple do have a few such agreements.

Would the world be a better place if Apple weren't allowed to Tivoize the iDevices because all the free software in them were licensed under GPLv3? I'd say yes.

by guelo 13y ago

Would the world be a better place if Apple weren't allowed to Tivoize the iDevices because all the free software in them were licensed under GPLv3? I'd say yes.

jevinskie 13y ago

Who is to say all free software developers want to prevent Tivoization? If all developers wanted to prevent that, they would use GPLv3! Clearly many developers like the MIT/BSD licenses. Are you advocating that these developers switch to GPLv3 or... what is your alternative?

MBCook 13y ago
Torvalds himself has said that he things Tivoization should be allowed, but many other big kernel developers disagree.
- belorn 13y ago
  When describing what an other person has said, please do not slim it down to the point where it losses context. What he has said is that he personally don't like DRM, but he thinks it outside the scope of the kernel and a software license (see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/fa.linux.kernel/L5NRD_ONkIk[1-25-false] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/fa.linux.kernel/L5NR...)
  - DenisM 13y ago
    I've seen an interview with Linus when he actually said just that: GPLv2 is about "if you used/changed my code I want to see it", whereas GPLv3 is about "If you used/changed my code I want to play with your hardware", and that he is not in favor of V3 for that reason as he doesn't feel its demands are "justified". So MBCook's statement is fairly accurate, to the best of my memory.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      s/your hardware/hardware you sold me/
      - joesb 13y ago
        You are allowed to play with the hardware. You can remove/change chipsets, install anything, take it to skydiving or burn it. Doesn't mean they have to make it easy for you to do it.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        ...that depends on the license. But I'm only here to clarify the very important point about who owns the hardware in question, not to call either license better.

zhemao 13y ago

I'm not sure what you're talking about. You think if the software is GPLv3, Apple won't put restrictions in their hardware in order to be able to shift the software with OSX? More likely they will just not use that software and go write their own (which is, after all, one of the reasons behind their support of the LLVM project in the first place). If all open source software was GPLv3, Apple would ship only proprietary software on their systems, so we'd go from OSX using free software with proprietary modifications, to OSX using completely proprietary software. Hardly much of an improvement.

vvhn 13y ago

What's FreeBSD's adoption of llvm/clang got to do with Apple's non-adoption of GPLv3 ? (Linux is a GPLv3 holdout as well btw). The *BSDs prefer a non-GPL licensed alternative if they can get one.

egil 13y ago
Linux is licensed as GPL v2 (only), so a switch to gpl v3 would require concent from all contributors and be practically impossible.

rsynnott 13y ago

What on earth does this have to do with Clang? You realise that Apple adopting GPLv3 GCC wouldn't require all iOS software to be licensed under GPLv3, right?

pilif 13y ago

We can clearly see that since the move to GPL3, Apple is reimplementing a lot of free software previously licensed under GPL2 (I wonder how long the default shell remains outdated bash. I wonder what they will move to). And unlike clang, not all of their replacements are free software. Case in point: their SMB stack. To me this shows that Apple would just not have used (and contributed to) any free software if it was all GPL3. The world would be a worse place. In fact, the world has gotten considerably worse, Apple-wise, when we lost Samba in OSX. The patent clauses in GPL3 make that license completely unsuitable for any company (with cautious lawyers) that owns significant patents. I can really kind if understand Apple here.

belorn 13y ago
Just to put it into perspective, the the patent clauses in GPLv3 was initially copied from the apache license almost word for word. The only significant change that FSF did was adding an additional point regarding patent agreements. They describe that: If you have an expressed permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for patent infringement, such agreement is seen as identical as if you were holding the patent yourself. If you are in a company that has significant amount of patents, and who would prefer keeping a patent rather than gaining benefit from free and open source software, then one need to keep an eye on any software one want to distribute that has apache, GPL or any other licenses with a patent clause in them. If you are in a company that has significant amount of patent agreements, then one need to keep an eye on any software one want to distribute that got GPLv3 software in it. Apple do have a few such agreements.