| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Quotes of the weekQuotes of the weekPosted Oct 30, 2008 21:01 UTC (Thu) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048)In reply to: Quotes of the week by jzbiciak Parent article: Quotes of the week
[...] but still block you from making your own changes to the software running on that platform. Yep! But AFAIK the answer of the "GPLv2 camp" would be "don't buy that hardware if you don't like it". The hardware vendor took GPLv2 software, modified it, and made the modifications available, and that's it. You can take that source and use it on the hardware you like, nobody forces you to buy DRM-crippled hardware. More to the point: I am really interested in Android, but I am unlikely to buy a G1 if it turns out it's not an open hardware platform. I am pretty sure somebody will make it run on the OpenMoko, and I'm pretty sure sooner or later somebody will make a 3G phone that is as open as the OpenMoko and will be able to run Android software. So, having all the Android source has value, even if the G1 hardware is "closed" (which I'm not sure it is, yet).
(Log in to post comments)
Quotes of the week Posted Oct 31, 2008 0:55 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I think you're missing the point of open source / free software. I don't think the claim is that the device vendors have a moral obligation to the user public to provide open devices. It's that they have an obligation at some level to the authors of the software.The open source idea (part of it anyway) is that an author gives out valuable software royalty-free in order to advance freedom. The vendor that chooses to use the valuable software is obligated to pay it forward. If the vendor can use the valuable software royalty-free and keep the device closed, the deal has failed.
Quotes of the week Posted Oct 31, 2008 7:51 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
The point of free software has always been to give the users more freedom,
not to give the authors of the software their name in lights or anything like that.
Quotes of the week Posted Oct 31, 2008 9:14 UTC (Fri) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048) [Link] The open source idea (part of it anyway) is that an author gives out valuable software royalty-free in order to advance freedom. Yes, I agree with this (also to the "part of it anyway", I know the issue is complex!). The main difference between the GPLv2 and GPLv3 "camps" is that the GPLv2 is strictly concerned with the source code of the software. The software authors give the source code freely, and expect the users to give back their work on the software. For the GPLv2 camp (AFAICS the position of Linus), maybe the software authors would like that the software users also commit to selling open hardware. They would also like that their software would be used only on open hardware... but they do not try to enforce it. What the GPLv2 does enforce is respecting the freedom (openness) related to the software "in itself": the source code must be given back, and that's it. Now, what's right and wrong (or what's better or worse) is a hard thing to decide, and ultimately I respect both views.
On the "educational" side of the issue (seeing the license as a mean to educate software users to respect and advance freedom), I'm more inclined to prefer the GPLv2. I have a kid, and I believe in the "teach by your own example" approach. I know that if I force him he will not "get it", and the thing will backfire in the long run. I explain him very patiently why I ask him certain things, he knows I'm not cheating because he sees I do what I preach, and that's it.
But again, I see the reasons why the GPLv3 added more restrictions, I agree with the goals, and appreciate that. Only, I'm not sure it's the best approach.
Quotes of the week Posted Oct 31, 2008 14:56 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] The software authors give the source code freely, and expect the users to give back their work on the software. The GPL requires distributors to "give back" the work (in source), not the users. This is a big difference, that is at the heart of the GPL.
Quotes of the week Posted Oct 31, 2008 15:12 UTC (Fri) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048) [Link] The GPL requires distributors to "give back" the work (in source), not the users. Yes, sorry if I've been sloppy with words. I know I can do whatever I want "in house" with GPL software, the obligations start as soon as I redistribute it "again" (the "giving back" thing). Anyway, I think this does not change my reasoning on one of the differences between the GPLv2 and v3...
Quotes of the week - "Linux" phones Posted Oct 31, 2008 17:06 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] "give the source code freely" is also a little sloppy in the wording, because they give it with major strings attached. Major enough that many would-be takers of the source code don't take it and pay money for an alternative. There are certainly many motivations for open sourcing code and many theories on which bring about which results, and GPLv2 is legitimate for some of them. I was responding only to the idea that "if they don't like it, they don't have to buy the phone" refutes Harald's statement that the phones are an insult to the Linux brand they use. Nobody contributed to Linux to preserve users' ability not to buy a closed phone -- they would have had that ability anyway. So to refute Harald's statement, I think the GPLv2 camp would have to say, "other phone manufacturers are free to make variations of these phones, so the Linux ideals are met."
Quotes of the week - "Linux" phones Posted Nov 6, 2008 22:06 UTC (Thu) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]
Important part of GPL v3 is also the requirement for source code
buildability. If you just get a GPL v2 source code dump that might or might not create a working binary after you somehow manage to make it build and you cannot verify whether what you got after building it, will actually correspond to the binary that was on the device (by replacing it and seeing that replacement actually works too), well...
Quotes of the week - "Linux" phones Posted Nov 7, 2008 8:48 UTC (Fri) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048) [Link] Important part of GPL v3 is also the requirement for source code buildability.
Yes, of course I see that's important, but I fail to see how this is not a requirement of the GPLv2 as well.
I reason under the hypothesis that also the makefiles (or build files, or whatever is used to build the program) are also part of the source code: they are copyrighted in the same way, they are included in the same package (the classical source tarball), and they are definitely needed to build the program. I know they are not copied into the resulting executable, but neither is the source code itself, not literally at least. The information contained in the source is transformed by the compiler into the resulting executable, and in the same way several pieces of information contained in the build and configuration scripts are transferred into the resulting executable.
Of course I can be wrong, but in this sense the GPLv3 only clarifies the intent of the GPLv2, but the original obligation to redistribute the "complete modified source" should be enough in principle. On the other hand, eventual DRM signing keys are typically not part of the original source code, so here the GPLv3 really adds something new...
|
|
||||||||||||