| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilitiesWesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilitiesPosted Jul 21, 2010 15:55 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (guest, #56877)Parent article: Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities
This is clearly a clash between a license intended to ensure user freedoms and a company hell-bent on ensuring that it is in complete control of what can run on the devices it has soldthere; fixed that for you.
(Log in to post comments)
Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities Posted Jul 22, 2010 4:07 UTC (Thu) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link] Why bother with this correction? It is a distinction without a difference. A given device has no relevance to user freedoms until after it has been sold, so arguing about pre-sale devices is meaningless from the point of view of user freedom. Regardless of whether or not the "has sold" part is stated explicitly, the context of the discussion already makes it clear that a given device is only relevant to the discussion after its sale.Imagine if Microsoft exercised complete control over what can run on the operating systems that it has sold. Is this acceptable? No? Then why should Apple be allowed to do so?
Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities Posted Jul 22, 2010 7:05 UTC (Thu) by Felix.Braun (subscriber, #3032) [Link] I think you missed Trelane's sarcasm. I understood his comment as underlining the absurdity of wanting to control a device that Apple has sold. It is really sad that customers are willing to let Apple dictate what software runs on devices they own. But alas – as is shown by the commercial failure of free devices like the Nexus-One or the Neo Freerunner – freedom doesn't seem to be valued as much in the broader public as it is in our community.
Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities Posted Jul 22, 2010 7:52 UTC (Thu) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link]
Certainly the premise of post-sale control is absurd to you, me, and (presumably) to Trelane, but it is far from absurd in the view of the general public. Indeed the (non-sarcastic) attitude of "they created the device, why can't they control everything about it?" is far more prevalent than the notion that users should have software freedom.
Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities Posted Jul 22, 2010 15:45 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] Why bother with this correction? It is a distinction without a difference. No; it's the difference between night and day. In either case, a set of stars is pouring out light, right? What's the difference between selling a builing with a table and chairs artfully arranged and selling a building with a table and chairs artfully arranged that the purchaser may not move or alter (real-life scenario; thanks Gehry). Add a required human or even robotic enforcer and you're getting toward the difference between controlling the software on a phone you're selling and controlling the software on a phone you've sold. A given device has no relevance to user freedoms until after it has been sold, so arguing about pre-sale devices is meaningless from the point of view of user freedom. That's rather the point I'm trying to make. the context of the discussion already makes it clear that a given device is only relevant to the discussion after its sale. But that's not what the sentence said, and I doubt very many people would quibble with Apple controlling the software on the phones it's selling. As you're saying, it's the control over the phones it's sold that's the key point of contention and perhaps the heart of the disagreement between those who don't see a problem and those who do. Imagine if Microsoft exercised complete control over what can run on the operating systems that it has sold. Is this acceptable? No? Then why should Apple be allowed to do so? Ah, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I think we both agree that Apple-like control (they already exercise control over end use through the EULA, WGA, compulsory updates, etc.)
Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities Posted Jul 22, 2010 15:48 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] agree that Apple-like control over post-sale (i.e. other people's) devices is absurdly bad policy and perhaps also technology. (sigh; I *thought* I'd proofread it!)
Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities Posted Jul 23, 2010 0:14 UTC (Fri) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link]
> Imagine if Microsoft exercised complete control over
> what can run on the operating systems that it has sold.
We don't have to imagine, it is called the Xbox and Microsoft clearly see the future in that direction. I was warning about the Xboxing of the PC years ago but of course I was wrong because when it happens it will be the iPhoning of the PC because Apple is just that Kewl.
And forget any anti-trust action because Microsoft will just be following Apple and Google down well worn roads when they finally do it. Disgusting how many glowing Apple one sees amongst the supposed Open Source crowd, helping Steve buy enough rope to hang all of us.
Wesnoth struggles with App Store's GPL incompatibilities Posted Jul 23, 2010 0:16 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
apple I will agree with you on, but I don't see how google deserves you ire. they are building the android OS, but they aren't the ones locking it down (they are perfectly happy to not have it locked down)
this is _very_ different from Apple and Microsoft.
|
|
||||||||||||