Rapid development vs. preservation of freedom [LWN.net]

Rapid development vs. preservation of freedom

Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:49 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)
In reply to: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com) by drag
Parent article: Why Torvalds is sitting out the GPLv3 process (Linux.com)

> The kernel developers care about creating the best kernel possible.
> They like the GPL because it requires the participants stay open and
> in combination with practical concernes it compels third parties to
> contribute code and praticipate in kernel development were otherwise
> with a BSD or similar non-copyleft license they would not.

You have hit the nail on the head. The act of Tivoisation does not
presently stop people from becoming kernel developers (the boxes in
question are inadequate -- all developers necessarily have something
better), therefore it doesn't alter the engineering result. To prevent
Tivoisation would likely deter Tivoisers from using Linux altogether, and
since some of them demonstrably do contribute to the 'innovation stream'
that is the Linux kernel development process, the core kernel maintainers
are loath to see them go.

Is this a case of sacrificing essential freedom for a little temporary
innovation?

to post comments

Rapid development vs. preservation of freedom

Posted Sep 27, 2006 11:02 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (1 responses)

Only if you think this particular freedom (the ability to replace the software in a particular device) is an essential freedom.

Note that the FSF does not believe that. It says it's fine to put free software in ROM in a device, leaving it impossible to install modifications. They claim to only care about symmetry of rights - of the manufacturer not reserving rights that the user does not receive.

I do not see where that symmetry is essential to the four freedoms.

Laws of nature vs. treacherous computing

Posted Sep 27, 2006 11:52 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

Good point, but I can't agree. Replacing the software you are running
*is* freedom 1. It has never been an explicit point that you should be
able to do it on the same box because there are too many caveats: for
instance in the historical multi-user environment it is clear that the
amount of core in the box and the system administrator are laws of
nature. ROM is similar, the bonnet is welded shut. A box for which only
the maker has the keys is not.

For what it's worth, I personally think signed software installable only
by a service operator makes sense if a machine is provided as part of a
service, eg. cable TV or a telephone, just like you used to have to get
permission from the BOFH. Clearly you don't have the four freedoms here;
maybe that's okay but maybe *not* if the software is copylefted. On the
other hand if you've bought the box, you own it and your right to tinker
with it should extend to the ability to reflash it if that is technically
possible. And if it's running free software, that means the ability to
modify the source, recompile and reflash that. But that's just *my*
opinion, and has nothing whatever to do with copyright law and licences,
nor with the FSF position on the Four Freedoms.

The "symmetry" that manufacturers should provide the ability to change
the software if they have it themselves is not "essential" to the four
freedoms, but Tivoisation and ROM *both* violate freedoms 1 and 3 in
exactly the same way as not having the source does. You can't change and
improve the software you have.

The difference is that in one case it might as well be a law of nature,
and in the other it's something deliberately imposed by someone who is
supposed to be granting their users the four freedoms they had from
upstream.

I think this point and "symmetry" are logically equivalent, or nearly so.
Tivoisation unquestionably violates the *spirit* of the GPL, if not the
letter of version 2.

I guess that the FSF have considered this similarity between keyed but
reinstallable software and ROM, and decided that a hardware limitation
like ROM is an acceptable exception to the four freedoms (in the same way
as, for instance, distributing free software binaries for computers which
aren't capable of running the compiler is acceptable), but actively using
a technical measure like TPM to restrict the ability of the user to do
what would otherwise be possible is not acceptable.

I see what you're saying, and it would be justifiable on utterly pedantic
grounds to add equivalent restrictions forbidding free software on ROM or
on inadequate computers. But the FSF's goal, in the end, is not to be
utterly pedantic but to expand freedoms. The Tivo and similar devices do
the exact opposite; they actively work against the goal, and so a new
licence which stops them from doing that is called for.

I will be very, very surprised if any of the Tivoisers switch from GPLv2
software to GPLv3 software in ROM; they are vastly more likely simply to
stick with the GPLv2 version. Remember that anything ever released under
GPLv2 will always be usable under those terms. Only when upstream
increments to "version 3, or at your option, any later version" will the
GPLv3 "innovation stream" be closed to the poor deprived Tivoisers.

It is only in the long term that this might impose *any* cost on
Tivoisers, and it's only an opportunity cost. The real pressure is peer
pressure; far more effective. So why you even mention ROM as an
alternative except to question the consistency of Eben Moglen (ha ha!) is
beyond me. You're sooooo pedantic ;-)

Rapid development vs. preservation of freedom

Posted Sep 27, 2006 11:10 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Is this a case of sacrificing essential freedom for a little temporary innovation?

Yes. Unfortunatelly it also destructuve approach in the long run. 10-15 years from now linux kernel will either be relicensed under GPLv3 or similar license or it will be marginal OS kernel (like *BSD is now). But there are no rush. Yet.