| |||||||||||||
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moresoGNU's healthy now, and will soon be moresoPosted Sep 27, 2013 17:01 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso by drag Parent article: 30 years of GNU
For GCC, in particular, the GPLv3 plays a role in popularizing LLVM, but I think a much larger and more important factor is GCC's developers introducing hurdles and anti-features into their software to prevent third party plugins. GPLv3 had nothing to do with creation of LLVM. That is crystal clear: Apple hired Chris Lattner before start of GPLv3 process. But GCC's switch to GPLv3 in 2008 certainly changed things: after that point it was not about “if gcc will be replaced with clang” but about “when gcc will be replaced with clang”. Apple never used any GPLv3 code (which means that all GNU programs in MacOS are quite old by now) and there are other companies like that.
(Log in to post comments)
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 17:57 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
> Apple never used any GPLv3 code (which means that all GNU programs in MacOS are quite old by now) and there are other companies like that.
That is because Apple LOVES embrace and extend, as does other companies; it's a "make easy money" scam. At any point in the future the many contributors to the "liberally-licensed", non-copylefted software ecosystems will probably get bitten in their collective arses by this fact, and when (not if) it happens, they will come back running to copylet.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 21:07 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> collective arses by this fact, and when (not if) it happens, they will come back running to copylet.
There are a huge and growing number of non-copyleft free software projects out there and have been for years. Nobody has had their 'arses bitten' that I can tell.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 22:23 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
He, he. Lots of BSD'd projects just died (or almost just died) in the 1990s because their code was being legally used under proprietary -- better developed -- software. Microsoft Windows being one of the offenders (which BSD socket library was used, anyway?)
But you don't have to believe me, just wait half a dozen years and tell me I was wrong. Or the other way around.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 23:31 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> He, he. Lots of BSD'd projects just died (or almost just died) in the 1990s because their code was being legally used under proprietary
BSDi products were sued because they were violating copyright and ended up settling out of court with Novel.
> better developed -- software. Microsoft Windows being one
Excuse me for the selective edit, but frankly that is BS, because; Microsoft Windows is not better developed, Microsoft didn't really have a operating system that was competitive with Unix (proprietary or free) until 2000, and the whole 'using BSD code' is entirely overblown and was the entire point of having TCP/IP stack cheaply licensed.
BSDi getting sued in the early 1990's doesn't support your contention at all, IMO. The only thing that it does illustrate is the destructive and toxic nature that copyright restrictions (and other IP) have on technological advancements.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 28, 2013 1:55 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Microsoft Windows is not better developed, Microsoft didn't really have a operating system that was competitive with Unix (proprietary or free) until 2000 What are you talking about? Windows NT was released back in 1993. Sure, version suitable for desktop (with accelerated 3D and other goodies) was not released till 2000, but Windows NT was used on quite a few workstation in that period. BSDi getting sued in the early 1990's doesn't support your contention at all, IMO. The only thing that it does illustrate is the destructive and toxic nature that copyright restrictions (and other IP) have on technological advancements. Sure, but what this has to do with anything? Yes, BSDs suffered from BSDi processing and lost couple of years as a result but when USL v. BSDi case was resolved Linux was still pretty weak OS which was clearly inferior to BSD. But managed to take over (as even some BSD guys admit). The question is still open if it was because of copyleft of if it was because of something else (Linus personality?), but it looks that copyleft actually helped. But that was different era: era when people (and not corporations) were main actors in FOSS projects, era when ASF tended to it's server and had no interest in office suites and, of course, era when copyleft meant tit-for-tat and nothing else. We still don't know how new and improved GPLv3-based copyleft will affect the balance. So far we are observing both positive and negative effects from it. E.g. Samba. Samba 4 will probably open some new opportunities but at the same time we can't use Samba with our Android devices (at least not on stock roms) because it's GPLv3-licensed now. Only time will tell which way this whole thing will go. Ditto for other GPLv3-based projects.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 28, 2013 10:44 UTC (Sat) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
>Linux [...] managed to take over[...]. The question is still open if it was because of copyleft of if it was because of something else (Linus personality?), but it looks that copyleft actually helped.
With respect to Linux (both in the sense of kernel and as operating system bundles called distributions), "quality of implementation" is the reason for many a user. Lately with all the security agency crap going on, I would prospect that open source (just open, not necessarily free) would garner an increase in followers.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 30, 2013 0:45 UTC (Mon) by jra (subscriber, #55261) [Link]
khim wrote:
> E.g. Samba. Samba 4 will probably open some new opportunities but at the
You certainly can use Samba on your Android devices. You chose not to as you don't want to obey the license.
Don't use the word "can't" when you mean "won't". It's misleading.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 30, 2013 8:53 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Don't use the word "can't" when you mean "won't". It's misleading. That's why I use “can't” when I mean “can't”. Samba is not something you can just add to your stock Android because it requires root access to be actually usable (you can install it on non-standard port, but then Windows will not able to see it which makes it less then useful for most users). You either need to root the device or install special rom. In both cases you, most likely, will lose the warranty. Instead we are forced to use MTP, PTP, or something like Dropbox/Google Drive. You certainly can use Samba on your Android devices. You chose not to as you don't want to obey the license. Me? I've chosen nothing (well, except maybe for the phone model, but they all are identical WRT Samba support). Android developers have chosen not to use Samba—and most likely because it's license is GPLv3 now. Android tends to avoid even GPLv2 components and GPLv3 is big no-no.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Oct 3, 2013 8:06 UTC (Thu) by madhatter (subscriber, #4665) [Link] I'm sorry, but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that GPLv3 software can't run on Android phones. I open up my F-Droid client, and the screenful of freshly-released software, all ready to be installed on my Android phone, lists along with the packages ready to go, their licences: four GPLv3, three GPLv3+, and one MIT.Much of the software I'm already running from f-droid is GPLv3-licenced, including Angulo, the APV PDF viewer, the Dasher text input client, the FasterGPS NTP client, and Vector Pinball. It might be fair to say that you haven't chosen a handset that makes this choice easy, or that you haven't chosen to use your handset in a way that makes this choice easy, but I don't think it's fair to say that it's in some inherent way impossible. For me, jra's point about "can't" vs "won't" stands.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Oct 3, 2013 11:24 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I'm sorry, but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that GPLv3 software can't run on Android phones. Who said anything about random pieces of software? Of course you can do that! But if you are creating software which is supposed to be used by OS ( It might be fair to say that you haven't chosen a handset that makes this choice easy, or that you haven't chosen to use your handset in a way that makes this choice easy, but I don't think it's fair to say that it's in some inherent way impossible. Really? What kind of handset I should have used instead? Note: I've clarified in the very beginning: at least not on stock roms. Of course if you root your phone or install custom firmware then you can use anything you want including
GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution? Posted Oct 3, 2013 20:11 UTC (Thu) by kmacleod (guest, #88058) [Link] But if you are creating software which is supposed to be used by OS (samba or libstdc++) and it's distributed under GPLv3 then no, you can not do that. Either it's distributed separately (libstdc++) or it can not be used at all (samba). Can you provide a link to an in-depth article or previous thread that gives background and details on "GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution"? An FSF statement along those lines would also work.
GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution? Posted Oct 3, 2013 22:26 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Can you provide a link to an in-depth article or previous thread that gives background and details on "GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution"? And before you'll say “hey, but they could have just opened up their system” you need to read another article. Actually you need just three lines from said article: Mobile phone sales is not like cameras or cars or clothing. In all those other industries, if you make a good product and offer it at competitive prices, you will have success in the market. In mobile, even if you have the best phone ever made, it is utterly IRRELEVANT if the carriers decide not to support it. Combine these two articles—and here is your answer. It's as simple as 1-2-3: You can notice that Apple does not cede control over iPhone to carriers (there are no carrier logos, etc). That's true, Apple certainly managed to pressure carriers more then any other handset manufacturer to date. But carriers still have some measure of control: even if technically Apple (and not you!) decides how your phone behaves carriers still decide many things. For example carriers determine if your iPhone will support tethering or not. P.S. Situation is slowly changing but I think it'll be few more years till anyone will be able to create truly successful phone which will be successful despite carriers opposition.
GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution? Posted Oct 4, 2013 1:33 UTC (Fri) by kmacleod (guest, #88058) [Link]
Ah, I misunderstood your post. I thought you meant a technical/legal incompatibility.
GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution? Posted Oct 4, 2013 10:28 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] In mobile, even if you have the best phone ever made, it is utterly IRRELEVANT if the carriers decide not to support it.This is, of course, not true in most of Europe. It's a US thing, I think. The thought of not being able to choose my mobile provider and phone independently is baffling. Why on earth would anyone want to cut themselves off from choice like that? Oh yes, because that way they get a 'free' phone (and an increase in contract cost that means they pay much more in the next year or two than they would have done to get the phone). i.e., it's a phone mortgage. I'm not really sure that phones cost enough to be worth taking out a mortgage for them -- particularly not when a side-effect is to greatly restrict your choice of phone.
GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution? Posted Oct 4, 2013 11:14 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
In the US, if you try to get phone service without the contract and 'free phone', you really don't save very much. I'm going through this process right now, and you really have to hunt around and _not_ go with the main carriers to save anything. A few years ago I purchased a tablet that could take a SIM card and when I went to get service, most of the phone stores I went to didn't understand what I was talking about. That's getting better now, but still only AT&T and T-Mobile can get you a SIM, The other two major carriers (Sprint and Verizon) require different models of the devices that only work with their networks.
And like it or not, the US is a huge block of customers for phone companies. the EU may or may not have more total phone users, but that market is far more fragmented in terms of the advertizing needed, the different language versions needed etc.
in the US, most phone manufacturers spend exactly zero money on advertizing, it's only in recent years that you would find any phone advertizing from Samsung or HTC (Motorola and Apple have been advertizing for a lot longer). Since the vast majority of users get their phone from their carrier, based strictly on what the carrier has on display in their store, there hasn't been much need.
One good thing about the 'smartphone wars' is that people are seeing that there are a bunch of different options, and so people are getting interested in getting a specific phone rather than just picking whatever is in stock.
as for developing fully open phones, if you were a phone manufacturer and knew that investing a large chunk of money into your own system would anger the carriers that control access to a very large number of customers, would you be eager to do so?
GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution? Posted Oct 5, 2013 14:56 UTC (Sat) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]
Actually, in the EU there is a huge market for SIM only plans, I think largely *because* of the fragmentation. Given that your mobile phone plan really only cheap in the country you bought it, it's not uncommon to buy an extra SIM when you go on holiday.
There are even providers that specialise in this: you select a country, a time period and a number of MB/minutes and they'll mail you a SIM card which you pop in when you reach your destination and pop out again when you go home. They don't even really need to advertise either, people who need it will go looking for them. But it does make locked phones somewhat worthless for normal use.
Ofcourse, for europeans going to the US, they can buy one SIM for one large area, which is reasonably attractive. I imagine this market will slowly disappear when the cost of roaming becomes more reasonable, either by competition or government regulation.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Oct 4, 2013 11:05 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Again, as others have already have pointed out, you are using "can't" when you really mean "won't".
Nothing stops someone putting together a phone and using GPLv3 licensed software, if they are willing to abide by the GPLv3.
|
|||||||||||||