Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft [LWN.net]

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 27, 2014 11:38 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (guest, #50784)
In reply to: Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft by silvas
Parent article: Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

In my experience, Stallman's view is extremely myopic because the real impediments to free software are larger societal issues[*].

[*] The GPLv3 "anti-Tivo-ization" wording is a perfect example that shows that confining your view just to software is myopic. Why shouldn't we want the entire device and all its chips to be free also? Why shouldn't the company's internal discussions be done in public? The answer to these questions is the same as the answer to "why does non-free software exist?".

So what's your point here? Stallman is just focusing on stuff he knows a lot about: it's pretty unreasonable to expect him to reform all aspects of society; I think that's actually down to other people if they think his ideals are compatible with other domains.

And in fact, people including Stallman have tried to encourage open hardware, arguably with less success because the development of hardware is somewhat different to that of software, because "the demands of business" combined with rampant patenting conspire to put hardware producers on the defensive, and because it is difficult to translate some aspects of copyleft into hardware and not have people complain about the translation. But it remains very possible that we'll see similar changes to the way hardware is made and licensed over time as well.

What you seem to be saying is that businesses have reasons for doing things a certain way and that they should be able to call the shots. What Stallman is doing is basically "consumer advocacy": when people buy a product, he's saying that it should really be theirs and they should be able to use it mostly as they wish and not how someone else dictates it should be used. Even then, he's only arguing on the basis that the hardware producer is reneging on a deal that they made with the authors of some software that gave them a viable product in the first place.

And people are demanding more transparency in business and society, and consumer rights groups have been active for decades. Telling people that "this is how things are done" and expecting them to just live with it is becoming an increasingly inadequate excuse for the status quo.

to post comments

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 27, 2014 21:39 UTC (Mon) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link] (3 responses)

> So what's your point here? Stallman is just focusing on stuff he knows a lot about: it's pretty unreasonable to expect him to reform all aspects of society; I think that's actually down to other people if they think his ideals are compatible with other domains.

Yet GPLv3 anti-Tivo provisions are exactly the example where FSF tried to expand its influence to another domain (hardware design) with bad results. Consider Chromebooks. They use a verifiable boot where Google holds a private key. Yet a user can replace the bootloader with pretty doable hardware tinkering without any need for special tools. So Google does not take away the freedom, but the code cannot be GPLv3 due to that anti-Tivo provision.

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 27, 2014 21:58 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (2 responses)

That fits with the GPLv3. What isn't OK is where the key is what's preventing you from using your own binaries. The Chromebook has an escape hatch whereas others don't. Sure, you can't use the same verification infrastructure with your own key, but the GPLv3 doesn't say you need to be able to either.

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 28, 2014 7:47 UTC (Tue) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link] (1 responses)

> That fits with the GPLv3.

I was not talking about enabling developer mode on the Chromebook that disabled kernel verification, I meant a possibility to install a custom boot loader. The developer mode still does not allow that, one has to tinker with the hardware. And I do not even see how enabling developers mode fits with the “Installation Information” section in GPLv3:

“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

Note the requirement that modified code is not interfered. This is not the case with the Chromebook as after activating that mode I cannot deactivate it and keep my changes. And if the mode is activated, then booting is clearly affected with a rather annoying message precisely "because modification has been made".

To stay within GPLv3 either the Google should provide a way to sign the code with their keys or Chromebook should allow to install custom keys (like with Windows 8 x86 hardware).

In any case, hardware changes to get a custom boot loader are outside “Installation Information” as otherwise anybody can claim that one can always disable a verified boot using a probing station or something to change a value in the register at the runtime.

Stallman on GCC, LLVM, and copyleft

Posted Jan 28, 2014 10:24 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

In any case, hardware changes to get a custom boot loader are outside “Installation Information” as otherwise anybody can claim that one can always disable a verified boot using a probing station or something to change a value in the register at the runtime.

Are you sure that argument will be bought by layman in court? Because this is where such things are determined. And I'm pretty sure Joe Avarege will see the difference between step-by-step instruction published on verndor's website and vague allusions to some complex and obviously illigal procedure.