FSF Rattles Tivo Saber At Apple 571
Ohreally_factor takes us back to Friday when both the iPhone and the GPLv3 were released. "This article at Tectonic suggests that Apple's iPhone might run afoul of the GPL. Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF is quoted as saying: 'Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work — it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software.' Might there really be GPLed code in the iPhone? It's well known that OS X built on BSD, which of course uses the BSD license. Webkit is based on KHTML which uses the LGPL."
GPL and LGPL software included and documented (Score:4, Informative)
Nice GPLv3 propaganda if you're into the whole "tivoization is ruining the world" thing, but otherwise pretty content free. Also, rather than speculating they could have done some minimal research.
Re:"Run afoul?" (Score:5, Informative)
So if the iPhone contains LGPL code the non-LGPL parts are covered by section 6:
Re:Harmful (Score:5, Informative)
What posturing is the FSF doing? I read the article & the FSF guy parsaid: 'Apple's released a proprietary & DRM-crippled phone - I wonder if it has GPLd software on it?'
The iPhone is both proprietary & crippled by DRM - I don't see where the posturing is.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Sensationalism" is correct. (Score:4, Informative)
Except that:
1) FSF said nothing like the summary implies.
2) I suspect the FSF chose the 29th so they wouldn't have too much publicity - I mean all the MS/Apple pundits who'd otherwise love to have a bit of a GPL3 bash have had their hand full. (either denouncing the iphone or heralding it as the second cumming)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:5, Informative)
As for why they chose to go that route, you can either put a pro-Apple spin on it and say they thought they could take a strong effort and help it out (by providing substantial code improvements, increased manpower and QA testing, and higher market penetration by leveraging OS X's greater market share than KHTML browsers before it) or you could take an anti-Apple stance and say they were lazy and didn't want to start from scratch. Even if you go that route, the "collateral damage" of Apple sloth has a net benefit on the project and the community, based on KHTML rendering improvements, Acid2 compliance, and growing the platform installed base.
Either way, the LGPL code in the iPhone is just as carefully contained as it is on current Macs (Webkit itself is under a BSD license, with only a few components LGPL'd), and the article is just capitalizing on iPhone hype.
They probably play on word interpretation (Score:3, Informative)
And I'm sure that, very well paid lawyers from TiVo and Apple will tell you that data DOESN'T include the keys, because, even without them, you CAN produce an executable ELF.
It just happens that your iPhone won't run it. But it's a perfectly standart executable, that follows exactly the ELF specifications.
That's why I personally think it was a good idea to explicitly mention the signing keys in GPLv3 :
- it makes explicit the LPGL situation
- it adds the same protection for base line GPL
- TiVo and Apple will have to come up with another trick to restrict people's freedom.
(Although another trick isn't impossible. Like : People can flash whatever firmware they want. But to decrypt and play DRM content, the DRM decryption is done by a on-board hardware chip that computes the key by XORing a key-token with data from specific memory locations which are likely to be different with a recompiled firmware. Some kind of AACS-like scheme, but where the device key used to get the media key is the firmware itself. This solution isn't non-crackable, but it is still another trick that TiVo and Apple may put up if they choose to abid to GPLv3)
Re:To put it another way... (Score:5, Informative)
What point? iPhone contains GPLv2 code. Apple are complying with the GPLv2.
I don't even OWN an iBuzz!
AFAIK, they are...
Nope - if the projects they are using switch to GPLv3 and they want to use code that others contribute to future versions then they will have to comply with v3. Otherwise, they can go on using and developing the existing GPLv2 code as long as they like - its not as if they don't have their own programmers.
Some people keep on trying to "spin" reality to make it sound as if the GPLv3 can be enforced retroactively. That's a very dangerous game because if industry gets that impression they will not touch the GPL with a bargepole.
Lets see if TiVO complies, or if they just drop Linux in favour of a closed source embedded OS.
Re:"Sensationalism" is correct. (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the Slashdot summary:
Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Tomorrow, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software."
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Informative)
This is in violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the LGPL2.
I believe that if it were under the LGPL3 it would be in direct violation.
--jeffk++
Re:Grandstanding. (Score:3, Informative)
Ignorance is not an excuse ... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Apple does publish all the source it is required to:
- With Darwin (the base OS) there is no requirement (it is a BSD license), but they do so: http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ [apple.com]
- With WebKit (a fork of KHTML), and engine used by Safari, they do so: http://webkit.org/ [webkit.org]
and there is also more: http://developer.apple.com/opensource/ [apple.com]
Sure in some cases the source is not always in an easy to compile form, but they are publishing it. As for the rest of the OS, since it is running in user space then as long as it is not based on an GPL type open source license, then there too there is no need to publish the source code.
Re:Ignorance is not an excuse ... (Score:2, Informative)
This article is about the iPhone.
The iPhone uses the WebKit library (LGPL), and maybe others.
Noone claims Apple is not offering source code for the FOSS projects they utilize.
But with (L)GPL v3 there will be specific clauses requiring that developers like apple and tivo let you recompile and use a interface-compatible version on the hardware they use. This is very much in the spirit of libre software.
Steve jobs does not think that is a good idea. Therefore, he does clearly not agree with the spirit of libre software.
Note that this might not be a legal issue per se, eg if WebKit stays gplv2. But, the GPs point is valid anyway.
Grand conclusion: GP has a point, you dont.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Informative)
I can compile my own programs and load 'em on my little Nokia 9300, bring it over to the States, turn it on and, pow, I'm on the same network as your iPhone - imagine the harm I can do (not).
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Jumping to conclusions (Score:4, Informative)
Even if kde developers decide to switch KHTML to LGPL v3, WebKit was forked from a earlier LGPL v2 copy of KHTML, so they would not be affected.
Moreover, one of the biggest contributors (the biggest?) to WebKit is Apple. Somehow it seems unlikely that apple will agree to a change in the license that can prevent it's use in their own cell phone. To be able to relicense it, you will need agreement from all copyright holders including Apple.
This is shameless FUD from FSF.
So FSF, I'll say the same thing that has been said so many times to SCO: Show us the infringing code or STFU.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Informative)
It's much simpler than our friend tries to spin the license. It's about freedom of the USER. As a user of GPL2 software, you can do *anything* you want with it and your freedoms are protected.
The minute you turn into a developer and distributor, that's the first time you even have to accept the license! You accept the license because without it you cannot distribute because of copyright. The license then grants the developer & distributor more freedoms than she would have without it. All she has to do is allow her modifications to give USERS all the rights that she had as a USER, nothing more nothing less.
It's a user-centric license and protects ALL freedoms of the user.
Re:How isn't this FUD? (Score:3, Informative)
Thank god the government and businesses are perfectly honest. Law enforcement officials never abuse access to such data for personal use. [copwatch.org] The government never uses data originally collected for innocent purposes then uses it to round up everyone of a particular ethnicity. [schneier.com] Private investigators and stalkers never engage in pretexting and other forms of fraud to get access to phone records and other private information.
Abuse of data is a matter of when, not if. My money is on it only being a matter of time before we discover that a murder victim was stalked by someone with access to the victim's cell phone location data. By erring on the side of limiting how much data you give businesses or government, you limit the possible damage if you're the unlucky person who gets incorrectly targeted.