GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal) [LWN.net]

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 5:45 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Sure, software license is not perfect tool - but it's better then nothing.

I disagree. This DRM issue has already proven very divisive. As written today, the GPLv3 seems pretty likely to fragment the free software community into even MORE incompatible source forks. If the FSF is going to accept such a risk I hope they do it for a better reason than "it's better than nothing!"

try to read GPLv2 sometime, OK?

Well that was rude. Why do you suppose the OP hasn't read the GPL?

When someone advertises brand-new linux-based phone or some other gadget and later it becomes obvious that there are no easy way to hack it - it means GPL failed

Not in my book. If the phone company makes their source code available to all (not just the customer like v2 requires), and especially if they contribute patches upstream like Tivo did, that seems like the GPL succeeding beautifully.

If you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee you must give the recipients all the rights that you have" GPLv2 always had - but in more explicit from.

Exactly. "By selling you this mobile phone, I give you souce code that went into it. You now have the right to build or buy a hardware platform to run it, just like I did." Seems to me the rights are identical.

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 8:25 UTC (Wed) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link]

Well that was rude. Why do you suppose the OP hasn't read the GPL?

The same reason as in your case: just parts of GPLv2 were recalled, not the whole thing. It can be called "scaning" or "glancing". It can not be called "reading".

If the phone company makes their source code available to all (not just the customer like v2 requires), and especially if they contribute patches upstream like Tivo did, that seems like the GPL succeeding beautifully.

Since you too have not read the GPLv2 I'll highligh this place for you: "if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have". This was promise in preamble. The rest of the license was intended to clarify this preamble. Unfortunatelly it failed to do so. Utterly: phone company or Tivo kept some rights - but buyer of the device got no such rights at all (even if he got the software). You are right when you are saying GPL achieved something else - and may be it's good. But if failed to achieve stated goals! If this is not failure - then what is ? What Tivo "contributed upstream" - is not relevant. What is relevant is that GPL failed. Utterly. Totally. Without a question.

If you don't understand it - then you've not read GPLv2. It's as easy as that.

P.S. Do we need patch badly ebough to risk fragmentation and everything else ? It's good but quite different question. Then we need patch to make GPL work again - it's not in doubt. Yes, we do. Because GPLv2 can not achieve what it aspired to achieve.

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 12:29 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

"Utterly: phone company or Tivo kept some rights - but buyer of the device got no such rights at all (even if he got the software)."

Note that the user generally has exactly the same right as the manufacturer and distributor of the device, who generally has no right to modify the device after sale except with your permission.

In some cases the device is used with a service that requires, as a condition of service, that the user allow the service provider to push upgrades, but in many other cases only the user can choose to take or request upgrades.

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 14:06 UTC (Wed) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link]

> Note that the user generally has exactly the same right as the manufacturer and distributor of the device, who generally has no right to modify the device after sale except with your permission.

I would like to believe that the rights relationship you describe above will remain the norm for the forseeable future, but I'm fairly certain that unless there is pushback, some version of the other scenario you present, and enforced by DRM, will quickly become commonplace for many "devices" - including personal computers.

Peter Yellman

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 12:50 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]

What rights that Tivo has have they NOT given to their users? Tivo had the
right to build a bit of hardware that runs a modified version of Linux...
Their users have that same right... Tivo are giving out the modified code
as they're required to, so anyone can take it and use it in their own
Tivo-like machine, if they choose to... But, nowhere in the license is
there a requirement (or even suggestion) that Tivo must let others run their
own code on the hardware that Tivo designed and sold to people... You're
trying to say that a software license should enforce rules about the usage
of the hardware it runs on... That's just silly... (And, remember, since
you're a self-proclaimed expert on every single detail of the GPL, you
should recall the bit that says, "Activities other than copying, distribution
and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
The act of running the Program is not restricted[...]"... So, if the
mystery "right" you claim Tivo to have not passed onto their users is the
right to run modified code on their Tivos, then you're talking about a
"right" which is clearly far outside the scope (intended or otherwise) of
the GPL, and therefore not one required to be passed on...)

Yes, it may be a bad thing from a user perspective to not be able to run
your own code on hardware you paid for, but that's a problem to be taken up
with the hardware manufacturer/seller, and definitely seems WAY outside the
scope of being dealt with by any software license... What Tivo is doing
may be morally reprehensible, but whatever else it may be, it's certainly
NOT a problem that is appropriate to being solved via software license...
I totally sympathize with the desire to fight such things, but this is just
NOT the way to do it... It's never going to work, and it's just going to
end up causing problems...

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 15:01 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

Please read the GPL, you illiterate troll (TIC ;-). The GPL states in the preamble that there are four freedoms, and one is the freedom to study and modify the software. There already is software on a Tivo, so you get the right to modify it from the original author. The software on the Tivo to be run on the Tivo, that's the point of modifying (otherwise, you just modify a copy of the software, that's something different). Tivo has the right to do that, they have to give that to you, as well. And after all, it's your Tivo after you bought it, so you have aquired the necessary hardware.

Some people might argue that the GPLv2 failed to protect this here. I'm not sure, IMHO it depends on the legal system. In Germany e.g., copyright licenses are first judged on the letter, and then on the intent. If there's no explicit clause for something, which the licensor did not forsee, the intent is still offers a fallback. Since Tivoizing software clearly fails to give what the GPL preamble promises, Tivoizing should be clearly illegal here. Now, Tivo AFAIK isn't selling their crap in Germany, and they don't plan to do so in the near-term future, so there's no point in suing them on German law.

I'm feeling like this is a troll war where the Linux side always responds with "I can't understand you, shout louder!", though they are not deaf, but just don't let the words sink into their brain. And yes, I feel that people like Linus Torvalds never have really read, or even understood, what the GPL is and what it is about. They just took the license because it worked. But they don't know why it works.

When I became a GNU project leader, I did invest some time to read all the legal stuff, like the GPL or the copyright transfer assignment to the FSF. I discussed a few difficult matters with RMS, where I couldn't answer the license issue doubts from some users (or at least the users didn't feel the answer was right - but RMS agreed on my interpretation). I think this exercise is worth doing, and I never could understand the mumbling of Linus towards FSF - all his arguments were clearly opposite to what I understood. I guess, they are simply wrong.

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 15:49 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]

> I'm feeling like this is a troll war where the Linux side always responds
> with "I can't understand you, shout louder!", though they are not deaf, but
> just don't let the words sink into their brain.

Funny, because that's exactly the feeling I'm getting from you and others on
the other side... How can you not understand what I said above; it's very
clear to me... A software license can not and should not attempt to meddle
in such areas... It's clear the GPLv2 DOES not, nor is it intended to, based
on a plain reading of its language... (And, please refrain from further
childish claims of your opponents being unable to read; it doesn't help your
argument at all, and makes you look like an arrogant fool...)

> There already is software on a Tivo, so you get the right to modify it from
> the original author.

That's right, and Tivo gives you that right, by releasing the source code...

> The software on the Tivo to be run on the Tivo, that's the point of
> modifying (otherwise, you just modify a copy of the software, that's
> something different).

No, you don't get it... RUNNING the software is NOT COVERED UNDER THE GPL!
It's got nothing to do with it at all! The GPL even explicitly comes out
and says that running the software is out of the license's scope... So, it
is OBVIOUSLY not one of the rights that can be passed along via the license
rules... You get the rights to have the code of the software running on it,
with all modifications Tivo have made to it, so you can further modify it
and do what you like with it (run it on another similar machine you constructed
to compete with Tivo, for instance)... But, nothing in the GPL gives you
the right to run arbitrary software on the hardware you bought from Tivo...
Am I saying it's right they should deny you that right? Hell no! I think
it's horrible... But, I don't think the GPL has, or SHOULD have, anything
to say about it... It's totally outside its scope, and should remain there...

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:37 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link]

>>RUNNING the software is NOT COVERED UNDER THE GPL!

It is not covered because Tivoisation kinds of restrictions were not present were not imagined when GPLv2 was written.

Remember in the beginning was the printer.

More importantly it is not there, because FSF believes that you have an absolute right to run the software even without accepting GPL.

>>It's clear the GPLv2 DOES not,
Maybe the courts will decide that way. And some people have decided that way.

>> nor is it intended to
Nope. Alan Cox does not agree with tivoisation. We the Free Software community agree to this intrepretation, and want to fix the license to close the loophole.

If others disagree thats fine.

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 19:11 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]

> We the Free Software community agree to this intrepretation, and want to
> fix the license to close the loophole.

So, you speak for the entire community, do you? And, if anyone disagrees
with you, they're kicked out of the community, then? Is it so impossible
to accept that someone might support the concept of Free Software (as
embodied by GPLv2), and yet disagree with adding such new restrictions to
GPLv3? If you don't drink the Kool-Aid and blindly accept it, you're
obviously not a member of the community, eh? Nice to know...

I applaud the attempt to fix such situations, but I just think this is the
exact WRONG way to go about it... It'll only backfire and cause more
problems than it solves... It'll either cause people to just use non-Free
software in such situations, or to force non-modifiability by anyone by
burning it to ROM... Both of which are a big loss for users, and result
in them getting an inferior product... Which is STILL just as unmodifiable
(actually even MORE so) by them! So, what will have been gained? Nothing
positive for ANYONE, that I can see... (Except maybe the makers of the
non-Free software that gets chosen, in that case...) If you really think
it'll result in more products modifiable by users, I think you're either
excessively optimistic or naive... I think it'll end up being counterproductive
to that goal, if anything...

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 20:25 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link]

The problem is this. The FSF started the whole four freedoms of Free Software , and there is a community that agrees with FSF. The best name to call this community is "Free Software Community", if there is a better name I will gladly use it.

There are communities that dont agree to the 4 freedoms, or have different interpretations. Most (all?) of them have called themselves members of the Open Source Community.
Then there are the FOSS communities that dont take a stand either way.

There is no kicking out. And I am sorry if I offended you.

Regarding the practical stuff, maybe you are right. At which point there will still be a thriving GPLv2 ecosystem. No harm in trying to stop people from taking away freedom, which is what GPLv3 is trying to do. As RMS said "I wanted to create a free OS or die trying", that is simply an ethical position. And people who share the similar ethical positions must be allowed to write their own license?

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 21:28 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]

But, it is possible to support those freedoms, and even your explicit goal
in this case, without also agreeing that it's a good idea to put such
language into the GPL... I just think it's a wrong approach to solve the
problem... If it would truly work as hoped, then sure it'd be great...
But, I can't see any possible way it COULD work, and can only see it
causing more harm than good... *shrug*

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 22:28 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link]

You are right that one can agree on the goals and differ on the tactics.

But there is one more step to the ethical concern Which is "I wont participate in subjugating users or taking away the freedom" that is also a reason to support GPLv3.

Remember in 1984 GPLv1/2 and the idea of GNU operating system can from ethical concerns/ideas, even if people thought they were "crazy radical" ideas.

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 16:42 UTC (Wed) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link]

> otherwise, you just modify a copy of the software, that's something different

That's all you can ever modify, unless you're the original author of the software and are messing with it at the byte level in your computer's memory. Everything else is just a copy.

RMS and others within FSF claim they have no problem with free software being distributed in ROM, because that's a case where nobody is capable of modifying the software. (Apparently they are blissfully ignorant of the market for copies -- sometimes modified -- of Apple ROMs for Apple II clone motherboards back in the early 1980s. Of course RMS was still writing the GNU manifesto at that point, the Apple II (and clones) was no doubt beneath his notice.) So to RMS, it's okay to distribute hardware with GPL'd software that the user can't modify -- apparently so long as the distributer can't modify it either.

Guess what -- Tivo can't modify the software in _your_ Tivo either...unless you give them permission.

So Tivo doesn't have any rights over the software in the box you bought from them that you don't have. It's a symmetric arrangement: you can't modify the software _in_that_box_ (you can elsewhere) without Tivo's permission, and Tivo can't modify the software _in_that_box_ without _your_ permission.

So what's the big deal?

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:46 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link]

With regard to ROM, you could go to multiple people (not necessarily the original vendor) and ask/pay them to remove the ROM, and install a different one with your own software on it.

With Tivo only Tivo can install a new image, nobody else in the world can. The asymmetry is the problem for us.

If the asymmetry is not a problem for you, then thats fine. But your arguments that it is the same case as ROM are not convincing to us who dont want Tivoisation.

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 19:17 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]

> With regard to ROM, you could go to multiple people (not necessarily the
> original vendor) and ask/pay them to remove the ROM, and install a
> different one with your own software on it.

And, similarly, you could surely go to multiple people and ask them to
build you a Tivo-like machine on which to run your modified Tivo source
code, too... Where's the difference (other than price)?

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 20:33 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link]

I can take the *same* hardware and get replacement free software (in ROM), same as the original vendor.

I cant take the *same* hardware and get replacement free software. But the TIVO can. That is the difference.

For ROM case: They can replace the ROM, I can do so.
For Tivoisation: They can replace the software. And oops I cant do that.

The difference is in Freedom. They have the freedom, and I dont.

If you disagree thats fine. But that is no reason to stop GPLv3 or stop anti-tivoisation clause in GPLv3

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 21:35 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]

Well, sure, if you want to call ROM software instead of hardware, which is
a bit of a stretch... It's "firmware", so a bit of both, I guess...

Ok, so what is it in Tivo that prevents one from running modified code?
Is it a BIOS ROM chip? If so, can not that be replaced to work around
the problem in the same way as your ROM example? It's got to be something
outside the kernel doing it, right? And, that has to reside somewhere...
If it were just other software on the disk, surely someone would have just
hacked around it by now... (Unless you want to get into DMCA violations
and such, but that's a whole other kettle of fish...) But, I'm guessing
it must be something intrinsic to their hardware, but which can probably
be replaced similarly to your ROM example...

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 22:40 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link]

The point is that they dont need to replace anything physical. But to run free software I need to hack HW.

I dont have a problem if that DRM HW prevented their own proprietary SW from running. I have a problem with when it prevents free software from running.

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 26, 2006 0:07 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

That is true. So, would you be happy if the manufacturer included a switch (perhaps inside the battery case) that prevented new software from being flashed? That way, the manufacturer can prevent you from loading new software without their permission, and you can prevent the manufacturer from loading new software without your permission. Equal rights for everybody!

Would this be satisfactory?

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 26, 2006 21:19 UTC (Thu) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link]

Lets go back to the ROM case.

Do I need to take permission from the manufacturer to replace the ROM? No.
Does the manufacturer need permission from me? Yes.

The same should be true going forward as well.

BTW: This is my last post on this thread, I am sure we will continue the conversation elsewhere.

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 21:48 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

If the DRMed part is socketed, you can replace it with a free one. Just like the ROM.

If the DRMed part is soldered down, you can unsolder it and replace it with a free one. Like the ROM.

If the DRMed part is masked in (like the Xbox), you're probably SOL without going to TSMC. Just like the ROM.

Where do you see a difference?

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 22:37 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link]

Who has the keys matters right?

With ROM the manufacturer has to physically replace the ROM. The same as me.

With TIVOisaztion I have to hack the hardware (like you mentioned), and they dont have to. They are free to happily replace "free software" which is not the same as me.

The "free software" that they give, is not free software to me.

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:21 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

Exactly. Read my original post again. The recipient of a Tivo box DOES have all the rights that Tivo did. I shall elaborate.

Let's say Tivo obtains source code from upstream. They didn't obtain hardware or porting help or anything like that. They obtained ONLY source code. Now they are required to send their source code downstream. And they do so, happily. Because they only received source code from upstream, they are only obligated to send source code downstream. If you want to run Tivo's modified source code, you are going to have to provide a hardware platform to run it on. Just like Tivo had to do.

Unfortunatelly it failed to do so. Utterly: phone company or Tivo kept some rights - but buyer of the device got no such rights at all (even if he got the software).

Specifically what rights did Tivo receive that you are not in turn receiving from Tivo? They did not receive flashable hardware, so why should you force them to provide it? Tivo's software is available and modifiable and running on non-Tivo computers all over the world. Where is the problem?

What is relevant is that GPL failed. Utterly. Totally. Without a question.

That's your opinion and it seems awfully pessimistic to me. Given the incredible diversity of hardware devices running GPLed software, and the large companies all collaborating and contributing code back to free projects, I can arrive at no other conclusion than the GPL has succeeded amazingly well.

If you don't understand it - then you've not read GPLv2. It's as easy as that.

Hm. At least attempt to keep this discussion respectful?

GPLv3: What the Hackers Said (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 25, 2006 18:59 UTC (Wed) by anonymous21 (guest, #30106) [Link]

Dave Miller wrote

"For example, polling on what the kernel developers thought about "keying of the Linux kernel" in the way that Tivo does would have been much more interesting. In my opinion, I believe you would have seen about an even split down the middle on this one. But even the people who are against keying think that the DRM language in the GPL v3 meant to combat this is not done correctly.

Several kernel developers believe that GPL v2 already has enough language to make restrictions such as keying be not allowed."

Alan Cox
"Right now the GPLv2 covers things like DRM keys in generic language and it means the law can interpret that sanely. Its vague but flexible, which lawyers don't like of course. There isn't any caselaw but out of court settlements support the fact this is enforcable."

So there are people who think that users should receive the right to run modified software on their hardware.

Tivo is reserving the right to modify my hardware, and hence the freedom to run modified versions is curtailed.