Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Open Source's New Frontiers (Business Week)
Business Week has put up a series of articles on open source, covering topics like database systems, MontaVista, software patents, and GPLv3. "Stallman's aim is nothing short of utopian. He wants to capitalize on the economy's growing addiction to open-source code as a means of forcing his social vision -- free software for everyone -- on information technology and consumer electronics writ large.
'In the world we're living in right now, no one can make small, cheap consumer electronics without our software,' says Eben Moglen, general counsel of the Free Software Foundation and co-author of GPL3. 'Our pre-market clout, our use as a raw material of manufacturing, is now large enough to bring an industry coalition into being.'"
(Log in to post comments)
biased viewpoint Posted Feb 6, 2006 19:28 UTC (Mon) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] The article on software patents is very biased against RMS. The article even quoted someone from the Association for Competitive Technology, a Microsoft front set up originally for the antitrust trial, questioning whether the GPLv3 will be adapted widely. In reality, the GPLv3's provisions on patents are not as strong as some already proposed in other free software/open source licenses and RMS clearly is not looking for a nuclear war, as the article suggests (but provides the weapons necessary for the free software community to fight one if the proprietary software interests want to attack using software patents).
biased viewpoint Posted Feb 6, 2006 22:37 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Ya.. The stated objective of the anti-DRM licensing is to make sure that a company can't force end users to use specific versions of GPL'd software thusly negating the point of having it free software.
It doesn't have anything to do with DRM with the likes of Apple's Itunes or anti-piracy prevention for propriatory software.
Open Source's New Frontiers (Business Week) Posted Feb 7, 2006 16:54 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] The Moglen quote is pretty fatuous, since there are far more small, cheap consumer devices today built with non-free software than with free. In fact, using Linux in cheap devices today typically costs more, in extra hardware costs (notably memory and processors with MMUs), than the saving in license costs for a proprietary OS.
I certainly would not want to play down the value of Linux to the consumer electronics industry. More important than the low cost is the availability of other software, built to run on top of it. However, consumer device makers often BUY that additional software, under secondary licensing, rather than using GPLed versions, just as they often buy Linux through a specialized distributor rather than adapting to their hardware it themselves.
The terms in the GPLv3 draft that restrict device makers' ability to lock their devices to certain software are likely to reduce consensus about licensing in the OSS community. Device makers will continue to deal with software providers who are willing to dual license and there will be more forked projects, because device makers have no obvious incentive to open their devices - the vast bulk of their market have no interest in extensibility and the risks involved are substantial (liability and support issues for altered software are the tip of the iceberg).
Open Source's New Frontiers (Business Week) Posted Feb 7, 2006 21:18 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The Moglen quote is pretty fatuous, since there are far more small, cheap consumer devices today built with non-free software than with free. The rest of your rant is irrelevant. It's sheer folly to think that GPLv3 is crafted to solve today's problem. It must be crafted to solve actual problems of 2015th year! Today it's cheaper to buy license for VxWorks then to keep additional memory and flash on device for Linux. Even then you can avoid Linux's overhead with eCos. 10 years from now ? I'm not sure. VxWorks is and will be quite limited piece of software. So is eCos. But as devices are growing more and more powerfull (my Zaurus can easily run KDE 1.0 and/or GNOME 1.0) they'll require more and more powerfull software. And then license costs will go up, up and up - or you'll be forced to use free software. Then GPLv3 will become relevant and Moglen's quote will be quite correct. Device makers will continue to deal with software providers who are willing to dual license and there will be more forked projects, because device makers have no obvious incentive to open their devices - the vast bulk of their market have no interest in extensibility and the risks involved are substantial (liability and support issues for altered software are the tip of the iceberg). If they don't like to open their devices they don't have moral rights to use free software. It's quite obvious - I've seen very few free software developers who object to this obvious idea. The discussion I've seen is about form used by GPLv3, not about idea. Some don't care (Linus as prime example), some welcome such change, but very few reject it. What's the point of having the source if you can not tinker with it ?
Open Source's New Frontiers (Business Week) Posted Feb 8, 2006 16:07 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Did you read the Moglen quote? He said "In the world we're living in right now", he didn't say "in 15 years". So, I would stand by what I said about his quote (my first paragraph). The rest of what I said was in the context of the future and the debate about the GPLv3.
The question of whether there's a moral contract that devices using free software should allow replacing the software is open to debate. It was not claimed as a right until relatively recently. The previously requested requirement was that code changes be given back. That allows you (or another device maker) to use those code changes/enhancements on a new device or a different device. That seems like a reasonable trade.
[Peripherally - "rant" appears to be the new "FUD", the term used to attempt to trivialize any statement you diagree with.]
Users should be able to run their own code on their own machines Posted Feb 10, 2006 7:15 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > The question of whether there's a moral contract that devices> using free software should allow replacing the software is open > to debate. It was not claimed as a right until relatively recently. You're correct that the argument wasn't *phrased* this way originally. But free software has always been about the freedom of *users*. Here is the FSF's definition of free software: Freedom 0. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose. Freedom 1. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Freedom 2. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour. Freedom 3. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Look closely at Freedom 1 in this context. If the software is designed to run on a particular device, but the device will only permit a single version of the software to run on it, then the software cannot be considered free. The reason, as articulated clearly and freshly in the draft GPL v3, is that 'source code' is useless if you can't make *your* device run *your* code. If you can't run your modified version, you don't have freedoms 1 and 3. > The previously requested requirement was that code changes > be given back. This has never been part of the definition of free software, it's only a feature of copyleft licences. BSD-licenced source code doesn't have this requirement and is still considered free. BSD-licenced software distributed without source is non-free, and so is any software built for a TPM-controlled computer when it comes without the key to run your own version on your own machine. > That allows you (or another device maker) to use those code > changes/enhancements on a new device or a different device. > That seems like a reasonable trade. No, it's not a reasonable trade because it doesn't grant freedom to the *user*, only to competitors who have the wherewithal to produce their own hardware (or acquire a 'mod chip', which is effectively the same thing and violates bad laws like the DMCA). If the end user doesn't have all four freedoms, the software isn't free. The only reason this hasn't been articulated before is that it hasn't been a problem. At the time the GPLv2 was written, embedded devices tended not to be reprogrammable at all (I remember RMS made a comment about ROMs effectively being hardware), and generally didn't run copylefted software. Software freedom only made sense for people who were already using fully-user-programmable machines, and were restricted in their use of existing software only by copyright licences and contracts like EULAs and NDAs. But now there are numerous systems 'out there' and many more in the pipeline which are fully programmable and fully capable of running free operating systems (some even run particular versions of Linux) but their users are locked out of genuine software freedom (freedoms 1 and 3) by TPM and similar schemes. The FSF perceives this as a problem and the draft GPLv3 addresses it well.
Users should be able to run their own code on their own machines Posted Feb 10, 2006 16:59 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] So, you would say that devices with non-replaceable software should not be allowed to contain free software components?
Basically, you're asking that free software be licensed for use only on free hardware. If the FSF and its supporters wish to make that choice, clearly they may do so. However, they should recognize that in doing so they are radically reducing their potential scope. A lot of device manufacturers will simply switch to something different. The attention from those companies and their developers, and the component developers who want to supply them, will move some fraction of community effort away from GPLv3 projects to projects under other licenses.
I don't know that this makes any practical difference to anybody. Embedded device makers often acquire open-software components under dual licensing anyway. I think it's a tactical mistake, because I think more and more hardware is going to impose constraints on the software it will run, which is going to reduce the audience for software that won't run in such environments (as well as reducing the development community).
That is, I think the availability of execution environments still outweighs the merits of the available free software. But, we'll see...
[DISCLAIMER: I work for a consumer electronics manufacturer. My views, expressed here, are my own and do not necessarily align with the views of that company.]
Users should be able to run their own code on their own machines Posted Feb 13, 2006 0:49 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > So, you would say that devices with non-replaceable software should> not be allowed to contain free software components? Not at all. I'm saying that replacing the software is a freedom that should inhere to the end user, not a privilege which can be granted or withheld at the whim of the hardware vendor. Hardware-like firmware installations like genuine ROMs can only be replaced physically, and if the user is technically competent to prepare a replacement ROM he or she *should* have every right to do so, though of course opening the case may void any warranty. Replacing software on EEPROM or Flash memory should be *exactly the same*, and it *is* the same on non-TPM hardware: the warranty is voided by user replacement of the software, but nothing else stops the user from experimenting with the device. The TPM uses digital restrictions, backed by the force of (bad) law, to prevent the user from modifying the software. If the user doesn't have a key which allows them to modify the software, the software is not free, even if it is licensed under GPL v2. Trying to do the same with software licensed under GPL v3 would be a violation of the licence, unless the hardware vendor supplied each user with the requisite key. > Basically, you're asking that free software be licensed for use > only on free hardware. No. I'm saying that if the user can't replace the software without loss of hardware functionality, the software *isn't* free. The GPLv3 draft merely codifies something which is already a fact, and a loophole in existing free software licences. > A lot of device manufacturers will simply switch to something > different. That's something that device manufacturers may already do. No such anti-DRM-licensed software exists yet, so manufacturers are losing nothing. It is only future versions of software which chooses to adopt such licence provisions which will be denied those device makers who continue to deny their users' freedom. > I don't know that this makes any practical difference to anybody. By that reasoning, the GPL ever made any *practical* difference to anybody. The difference is *principled*, not practical, and always has been. > more and more hardware is going to impose constraints on the > software it will run If the hardware constrains the software to be non-free, it matters to the free software community.
Users should be able to run their own code on their own machines Posted Feb 14, 2006 20:24 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] OK, should free software not be permitted to be used in contexts where the end user is not permitted to install software? That is, a particular system may not grant administrative rights to all users. Would you say that in such a situation, the owner of the machine should not be able to expose free software to the end users, because those users would be unable to modify it?
Consider a further example where a manufacturer of MP3 players distributes them with only a superuser login allowed to install software and conveys the machines as licensed rather than sold, with the company specifically retaining the right to modify the software. Is that in or out of license terms? [Many people with Tivos get them under terms not unlike that, from cable/satellite content providers.]
Just curious how far the philosophy goes...
Users should be able to run their own code on their own machines Posted Feb 15, 2006 1:19 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > OK, should free software not be permitted to be used in contexts> where the end user is not permitted to install software? That is, > a particular system may not grant administrative rights to all users. Ah. Yes, if it's not your machine you need the owner's permission to do anything with it at all. The admins of timeshared systems have every right to restrict your use of their machines, if only to ensure reliable operation. You have no 'software freedoms' at all without the appropriate equipment. In the context of a copyright licence, the rights you obtain under the GPL to software you use on someone else's machine are entirely contingent on your right as an unprivileged user to exercise them. I see now that this is probably the ultimate reason that the GPL was not originally phrased in terms of the end-user's four software freedoms: it would have prevented timeshare administrators from letting their users run free software while placing usage restrictions on the machine. For the purposes of copyleft, the licensee is any person who legitimately obtains a copy of a program. For the purposes of the definition of 'free software' the user is the person who has the wherewithal to exercise some or all of the four freedoms; the software is only free for a user if all four freedoms are both legal *and* within the realm of physical possibility. The purpose of copyleft on a program is to propagate the freedoms along with all copies of it -- but a licence can't provide the freedoms to users who have inadequate access to hardware. The idea that a network provider can place restrictions on the operation of network-connected set-top-boxes and telephones is perfectly acceptable on the grounds of network reliability. But if I *buy* a machine, I want full usage rights over it. Any conditions on its mode of operation would have to be asserted somewhere other than the bill of sale: tort law or network access contract, for instance. If I'm clearly *leasing* it from another owner, on the other hand, the lease agreement can place all sorts of restrictions on what I do with it: it's just like buying time on a computer in an internet cafe, except that I get to take the machine away with me. Any rights to the software I receive along with my lease are subject to the other conditions I have agreed to. This means that, for me as a user of this computer, any copyleft software on it isn't 'free software' unless the lease permits me to exercise the four freedoms. It's up to lessees to accept these conditions, and up to local laws whether they are actually enforceable. I think (but IANAL, and I may be thinking by analogy with shrink-wrap software licensing) that there are some jurisdictions where such a lease is effectively a sale, and some of the lease conditions may be null and void. Certainly to be enforceable the lease should be a signed contract, and I suspect it often isn't. Now I have a feeling that long-term leases of consumer products like Tivos and music players *should* grant more rights over the product to lessees than I'd expect from just walking in and sitting down at a computer in a uni lab, but I can't make a solid argument for it right now. I will say that such leases are generally intended to effect a 'sale' while limiting the rights of the purchaser over the product, but in many cases the limits imposed might be reasonable; it's only objectionable when the limits are unreasonable. Inasmuch as the lease conditions are enforced by, and used to enforce, such iniquities as digital restrictions, I think the FSF is right to pull GPL'd software out of the mix. But the real iniquity which the FSF is fighting is not merely DRM as a technology; it is the backing of DRM by the DMCA and its cousins abroad. As far as I can see there's little copyleft and the idea of free software can do about unreasonable conditions imposed when someone signs a lease. Any sufficiently general clause in the GPL which precluded unreasonable uses of free software in leased consumer products would probably also prevent reasonable uses in other restricted environments like public-access networks. > Consider a further example where a manufacturer of MP3 players > distributes them with only a superuser login allowed to install > software and conveys the machines as licensed rather than sold, > with the company specifically retaining the right to modify the > software. Is that in or out of license terms? The licence terms of GPLv2 don't actually mention the hardware, so compliance with GPLv2 depends on notice of the licence and access to source -- not on the actual possibility of replacing the software on the original device. The draft GPLv3 *does* mention the hardware, but only in the DRM clause with the presumption that nothing besides DRM prevents the replacement of the software on a device. It certainly doesn't talk about lease terms, so yes, in the absence of DRM, I think your use case is draft-GPLv3 compliant too. The device may not employ DRM to prevent the replacement of any GPLv3'd software, but preventing it in any other way seems acceptable under the draft version. All of a sudden I think this is an area that needs some work! We're only *starting* to learn why Moglen says that protecting freedom is complicated :-)
Open Source's New Frontiers (Business Week) Posted Feb 7, 2006 23:39 UTC (Tue) by njhurst (guest, #6022) [Link] <em>the vast bulk of their market have no interest in extensibility and the risks involved are substantial (liability and support issues for altered software are the tip of the iceberg).</em>
Could you elaborate please? Otherwise I just read that as trying to overstate the case.
Open Source's New Frontiers (Business Week) Posted Feb 8, 2006 16:13 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Most cell phones are sold to people who use them as phones. Few people, even people with smartphones, add software to them. For the vast majority of the market, adding ringtones is as far as they go or want to go.
Very few people add or modify the software in their MP3 players, wireless routers, DVRs, etc. Most consumers just use them as the consumer devices they were built to be.
Consumer device makers are generally aimed at that vast majority. Taking on the added cost of creating SDKs and managing customer support for the relatively few who want to change the software is not an attractive business plan. As to liability, consumer device makers do regularly get sued because their devices don't behave as expected. If users can modify the software, there is the potential for additional liability for misuse of the device (if, for instance, someone turns her cellphone into a cellphone-jamming device).
Open Source's New Frontiers (Business Week) Posted Feb 8, 2006 17:04 UTC (Wed) by mikec (guest, #30884) [Link] This is indeed the very boring future engineers software and hardware alike face...
Everything will tend to the "appliance" model as that is what the "typical" consumer is capable of using...
The use model will evolve (or devolve) to the point that the choice of OS and processor will be uninteresting to say the least...
I am growing at once excited to have this stuff "just work", and frightened that we are going to return to the point that "consumers" don't need and cannot get compute power since GHz processors make no sense for the vast majority of consumers and consumer applications.
It certainly makes no sense to have a TV that is even capable of reciving a virus, much less running a dual core processor to do what can be done in a $0.20 codec chip (in bulk).
The remaining hold-outs justifying the provision of commoditiy/consumer compute power are:
So, our Faustian bargain could be rock-solid, unhackable, cheap, cool appliances that wipe our figurative backsides and just work without hassle, but a return to the old days of Big-Iron and dumb terminals...
I for one, am making use of my basement cluster and bemoan the loss on many fronts...
|
|||||||||||||