Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Nokia and Linux Can Live Together

CowboyNeal posted more than 6 years ago | from the playing-nice dept.

Linux Business 155

Bruce Perens writes "Ari Jaaski of Nokia is concerned that the Linux developers need to learn to live with DRM, SIM-locking, and 'IPR'. But they won't. Fortunately, Nokia can do all that it wants with Linux, while being GPL2 and even GPL3-compatible. The key is knowing how to draw bright lines between different parts of the system. That's a legal term, and in this case it means a line between the Free Software and the rest of the system, that is 'bright' in that the two pieces are very well separated, and there is no dispute that one could be a derivative work of the other, or infringes on the other in any way. All of the Free Software goes on one side of that line, and all of the lock-down stuff on the other side." A very interesting read, and a good how-to for any company that is looking to use GPLed code as part of their products, or even just make their products to be hacker-friendly.

cancel ×

155 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmm (4, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23791891)

From the summary: "Nokia is concerned that the Linux developers need to learn to live with DRM, SIM-locking, and 'IPR'. But they won't. "

Rephrased by me: Nokia is concerned that they need Linux developers need to learn to live with DRM, SIM-locking, and 'IPR'. And they won't.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Hmm (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23791951)

I was probably like any other fifteen year old when I was growing up, seemingly aways having to fight off a hard-on. Maybe it was hormones, maybe it was because I was still a virgin, but my almost daily jack-off sessions didn't seem to help much. I still wanted to experience the feeling of my dick actually plunging into some beautiful young girl's tight, wet cunt. Hell, she didn't even have to be all that beautiful!

This feeling was driving me crazy. I HAD to have me a piece of ass soon, or I was simply gonna explode! I just couldn't keep out the thoughts of some young girl's pointed, jiggling tits slipping between my lips while my dick plowed between her moist slit.

My imagination, summer bikinis, and dad's PENTHOUSEs helped me to fill out my favorite fantasies of what the girls in my classes looked like naked. Those vivid images of beautiful, naked young girls coming into my room looking at my dick with lust, or my plopping them down on a desk right there in school and fucking our brains out seemed to dominate my every waking moment. Hell, even my nights were filled with wet dreams of these nubile young girls offering their naked bodies to me on sight!

The truth was I had never even seen a live naked girl since I was about seven-years-old playing doctor with a neigbor girl. Even then I didn't know what it was all about, just that my little dick got hard when I touched her bare pussy and that it felt REAL GOOD when she touched my hard dick. 'If only I new then what I know now,' I thought. Furthermore, I was much too shy to even approach a girl my age to ask for a date, much less to ask for a piece of ass or a blowjob.

I was sitting under a tree fretting about all of this one summer day, when I was startled by the voice of a young neighbor girl who had walked up behind me.

"What are you doing out here all by yourself?"

Pauline was a typical eleven-year-old, her body just beginning to show the first signs of maturing into an hourglass shape, but she still was flat-chested. Her personality had definitely not matured, and I even cosidered her to be quite a brat.

"Nothing much, just moping around," I told her.

"What's wrong?" she asked in a soft tone, touching my knee as she sat down beside me on the ground, her small skirt riding up her smooth legs.

I had never looked at her in a sexual way before, but the combination of my frustration and her uncharacteristic soft-spoken manner caused me to take a second look at her. She was actually a very pretty young girl, with long dark brown hair that flowed down onto her flat, preteen chest. Her innocent dark brown eyes looked deeply into mine as she pondered my troubles, and I began to get an idea on how I might exploit this budding motherly instinct of hers.

"Well......, it's just that a lot of the other guys my age have dated girls already," I began, "some of them have even had sex."

I paused to check her reaction. She was still sitting there looking at me intently, her knees pulled up near her chest and her arms draped around them casually leaving her skirt to gape open under her legs. I was sure that anyone passing by would be able to see her panties, but she didn't seem to be aware of her immodest pose.

"I'm just too shy to ask anyone out, though. I guess I'll never have the guts to either."

She sat there silently, bending her head down and resting her chin on her knees. She seemed to be in thought as she began to stare blankly at the ground in front of her, possibly wondering about her own lack of boyfriends and whether she too would ever have the experience of having sex one day.

"Have you ever wondered what it's like to have sex?" I asked her, hoping to guide the situation into a possible encounter. v She looked at me momentarily to see if I was sincere, or just trying to poke fun at her before answering.

"Well...., yeah...., sometimes...., but nobody really likes me much around here. All of the boys in my class just want to play by themselves. I'll probably never have a boyfriend or anything," she said solemnly.

"Have you ever thought about doing it with anybody around here?" I asked, pressing further.

"EEEWWW, NO!" she said, raising her voice defensively.

"Don't get mad, Pauline! I was just wondering." I said, trying to salvage the situation. "I wouldn't tell anybody if you had thought about it."

After that exchange, we both sat silently for a few moments. She resumed her position of resting her head on her knees, and her skirt still left her entire bottom open below her legs. Hoping to get a better view of this sight, I stretched and yawned, feigning fatique. I then bent forward and crawled along the ground until I was stretched out on my side facing Pauline, my feet resting against the large tree. She looked at me momentarily before reaverting her gaze to the ground directly in front of her, resuming her thoughts. I waited until she looked away before looking under her legs, but when I did, I was greeted by the sight of her beautiful tanned legs disappearing into the rumpled bottom of her skirt. Between them was a bright white strip of cotton cloth, covering what I knew had to be her young twat. The tightness of the cloth stretched across her little pussy, clearly identifying just where it was by the indentation of the fabric along the slit. My dick immediately began to respond, and I quickly stuck my hand in my pocket to adjust it before it was too late, leaving it there to help hide the effect it was going to have on my pants.

"I've thought a lot about having sex," I said, looking back up to her eyes just as she turned her gaze back to me.

"Really? Who with?" she asked curiously.

Now she had me on the spot. If I told her all of the girls my fantasies revolved around, it would be just like this little brat to go and tell them. As I studied her face though, I noticed a look that I had never seen before. It was as if she was trying to form a mental image of two people having sex, me being one of them and the other still left blank.

"Well...., I don't know. You might think it's gross if I tell you. What's more, you'll probably go right off and tell them if I told you who it was," I said.

"I won't think it's gross, and I promise I won't tell...., please....." she pleaded.

Now I was beginning to feel I was getting somewhere. I really had her curiosity up, and I even thought that she might even be enjoying this line of conversation.

"Well...., OK," I began. "But you gotta promise you aren't gonna tell. And it's not like I would really do it with them or anything. I've just thought about it, OK?"

"OK, sure!" she replied, just a tinge of excitement in her voice. v "Um..., well..., you know Jodi McAllister? I've thought about doing it with her." I said.

"Oh," she replied, sounding slightly disappointed.

"Yeah, she's got a nice body. Blonde hair....., blue eyes...., and pretty nice tits too! And she's got a REAL nice ass on her!" I said, hoping to get Pauline's gears going.

Pauline raised up, resting her chin on her hands, her elbows on her knees. She shifted her geet out from her body, keeping her thighs together. Her little feet were pointed inward slightly, giving her a very little girlish look. Her gaze seemed to be far off now as she thought about what I had said.

My eyes returned to that magic spot between her legs momentarily, as I pondered how to word my next sentence.

"Who else have you thought about?" she asked in a faraway tone.

"Well...., if you promise you won't think it's gross.....," I said, pausing for a response.

"No..., no, I don't think it's gross!" she said, looking back at me with pleading eyes.

"Well...., I'm kinda embarrased to tell you who else I was thinking about," I said teasingly.

"Aw, c'mon....., I promise I won't tell!" she begged.

"Well...., you really won't have to...., 'cause...., I kinda have been thinkin' about doin' it with you," I said softly, not really lying about it now.

A look of complete surprise came over her face as her head raised from its resting place slightly and her hands came apart. Her mouth gaped open as she took in what I had just said and I noticed a distinct deep red blush spread across her face.

"Larry...!" she exclaimed, not really knowing what to say next.

"Y-y-you've really..... thought about...., y'know..., having sex..... with me?!" she asked in disbelief.

"Well....yeah," I said, more confidently. "You're a pretty girl, and even though you don't really have any tits yet, you still have a nice body."

She blushed again, instinctively reaching down and wrapping her skirt around her legs, drawing them together and hunching over to rest her chin on her knees once more. It was obvious that she had been flattered about my remarks, but at the same time she was totally caught off guard with the thought of someone wanting to have sex with her. I could see her playing out the scene in her mind as she sat there, rocking back and forth slightly.

A long, pregnant pause elapsed before anyone said anything again. It was me who initiated the next question.

"Well..., what do you think?" I asked her. "Do you think you would want to have sex with somebody like me?"

"NO!" she exclaimed. "I couldn't....., I mean....., I'm only eleven-years-old. I shouldn't be doing stuff like that. And besides, you're fifteen!"

"So, I know some girls who did it when they were nine- years-old," I lied.

"Oh yeah....., who?" she demanded.

"Well...., I promised I wouldn't tell. And promises are promises," I said, trying to get myself out of that one.

Pauline thought for a moment before saying, "Well...., I dunno....., I just don't think I better do anything like that."

"OK, OK......, but if you COULD do it, do you think you would do it with somebody like me?" I asked, trying to keep on the topic.

"Well...., I dunno," she said blushing. "I...., I guess so."

I just smiled back at her, "Thanks, Pauline. I needed to hear that!"

She looked back at me, and an embarrased smile flashed across her face as she had to look away. I wasn't through with her yet, however. I just HAD to get something out of all of this. My dick was pressing against my pants with one of the most raging hard-ons I had ever had. I had noticed Pauline looking down at my crotch a couple of times as we had talked about doing it, but I wasn't sure if she saw anything as my hand was still in my pocket, paritally hiding the tent-like effect my dick was having on my pants.

I waited a few more moments before starting again, "You know...., I don't even know what a naked girl looks like."

"What about your sister, haven't you seen her naked before?" she asked.

"Well....yeah. But that was a long time ago, when she was just a little baby. Besides, it's not the same when you see your sister, especially when she's only one-year-old."

I continued to look at Pauline. She was all balled up, and refused to look at me when we weren't talking. I had decided that I just had to at least see her bare little pussy, even if she wasn't gonna let me fuck her. At least I would have something to go whack off with for a while.

"What about you...., would you let me see you naked?" I asked hesitantly. "I'll let you see me naked."

"I..., I don't know. I better not," her voice showing her uncertainty.

"Aw, c'mon Pauline," I begged. "I'll probably never get to see a naked girl until I get married...., if I ever DO get married."

"I-I don't know, Larry." she said nervously.

I could tell she was actually considering it, but she still would have rather I hadn't asked. Even so, the thought of seeing a naked boy probably for the first time intriqued her.

"I'll make it worth your while," I went on. "I'll buy you an banana split when the ice cream man comes by."

She paused for a moment, biting her upper lip as she contemplated my proposal. The agony of the moment was almost unbearable for me.

Finally, she spoke, " Well....OK...."

I almost leaped for joy inside, but I kept my cool on the outside. At least as much cool as I could considering my state of excitement.

"But you've got to promise that you'll not touch me. And you've got to promise not to tell ANYBODY. And you still have to buy me the banana split." she rattled on.

"OK, OK," I interupted, "I promise, I promise."

"C'mon, let's go to my grandpa's barn where nobody will see us," I said, grabbing her by the hand and rushing her away before she had a chance to change her mind.

Grandpa's barn was way off in a field by itself, surrounded by a few old oak trees on the sides and back. He used it mainly to store hay for his cows, and hardly ever came there during the summer. He also kept an old Studebaker out there, and that is where Pauline and I stopped to carry out our deal.

"You go first," I told her.

"Can't we both just go at the same time?" she asked.

"Well...., yeah..., sure," I said almost reluctantly, not wanting to miss one second of her bare pussy being exposed.

"Remember, you can't touch, and you've got to buy me that banana split," she said.

"I know, Pauline. You don't have to keep reminding me," I said, as I unzipped my pants and she pulled her panties down under her skirt.

I quickly shucked my cut-offs down, exposing my underwear and the large bulge sticking out into it. Pauline had bent over to pull her panties down to about her ankles, then stood up, stepping out of them with her left foot and flipping them off with her right. As she stood, she became transfixed by the sight of my bulging underwear.

Knowing that her pussy was naked under her skirt, and that I was about to see it seemed to make my dick even harder than ever. What's more, knowing that my naked cock was going to be so close to a naked pussy, and me not getting to at least stick it in was more than I could bear. I just had to have more than just a look. My mind raced over what I could say to coax her into letting me at least try to stick it in her as we both slowly began to expose our sex to each other.

I bent over as I slowly lifted the waistband of my underwear over my pulsing cockhead, sliding them down my legs. My face was about a foot and a half from Pauline's crotch, as she slowly lifted her skirt. The hem slowly inched it's way up, and just as I saw the first signs of a tiny hairless slit she stopped.

"Well, stand up so I can see it. We've got to do it together," she demanded.

Reluctanly I stood up, my hard dick pointing up at her face at about a 45 degree angle. Pauline gasped as she looked at it bobbing slightly in front of her.

"OK, Pauline, take your skirt off," I said impatiently.

"I'm just going to lift it up so you can see it, I don't want to take it off," she replied.

I was at the point where I didn't care, just so long as I could see her whole pussy. Quickly she jerked her skirt up over her waist to expose my first full view of a live girl's pussy. It was so beautiful, just a tiny little hairless slit laying there between her closed legs. I marveled at the smooth folds of skin, and the lack of anything else around them.

"Spread your legs a little bit, Pauline. I can't really see anything yet," I asked, my voice almost choking in my throat.

Pausing for a second, she then stepped outward with first one leg, then the other, leaving me a clear view of the little line running down her crotch and disappearing up under her. We stood lie that for a little bit, both of us in awe of each other before I spoke again.

"Pauline.....," I began, "Just let me stick it in you one time...., PLEASE! Just one time, that's all."

"I don't know....," she said cautiously, "besides, you said all I have to do is show you my thing, then you would buy me the banana split."

"I know, I know....., but you look so pretty down there...., a-and guys who have done it before tell me that it feels REAL good when you do it. I promise I'll only stick it in and then pull it right back out...., OK?" I pleaded as I watched her let the hem of her skirt relax downward a little as she thought.

"Well.....," she thought for a moment, looking at my cock, "I......, I guess it will be alright....., just one time though."

"OK," I said, "I get to stick it in you all the way one time, then I'll pull it out."

"Then you buy me the banana split," she added.

"Then I buy you the banana split," I acknowledged. "C'mon over here to the car, we can do it in the backseat."

She dropped her skirt back down and stood by the car door as I opened it. Then she jumped in and lay down on her back across the seat, pulling her skirt up. One leg draped off the edge of the seat, giving me my first good look at her whole, hairless little pussy slit. It started just a little ways up the front of her body and continued down all the way between her legs connecting with the crack of her ass, making one continuous line. The lips of her hairless twat were tight together, leaving no clue as to where her little hole might be.

Slowly, I climbed in the car over her until my dick hovered right over the top of her slit. I wasn't quite sure just where it was supposed to go, so without further ado, I began poking at her slit with my dick. The first prod ran along the very top portion of her hairless slit, the head of my cock parting her lips slightly as it slid up and onto her lower belly. She giggled a little bit at this new stimulation, as the shaft of my dick slid against her preteen clit. I raised up and tried again, producing the same effect. I propped myself up with my left arm as I backed up a little and eased my dick head down her slit with my right hand. 'Where is her little cunt hole,' I thought as my cock head explored the length of her slit. Suddenly, my dick felt something slightly more moist and hotter than before. 'That must be it," I thought, as I held my dick in place and pushed slightly. Her hole was tight, and my dick glanced off and ran down between her ass cheeks.

Again, I backed up and placed the head of my dick at the entrance to her tight, hairless hole and pushed. This time I felt the head go in slightly. As hard as my dick was, it began to bend so I backed off of the pressure a little, but keeping my dick in the same place. Once more I pushed in, and again I felt my dick slip in a little more. This time when I stopped, I felt the walls of her pussy begin to slip down around my cock, readjusting themselves to where they had formerly been. Again I pushed, and I noticed that her pussy lips seemed to go with my dick inside her. When I stopped again, I could see her slit slowly reappear as the walls of her pussy slowly slid back down my dick.

Again I pushed, and suddenly Pauline gasped. I wasn't sure what happened, all I was sure about was that the feeling was incredible. It was like pushing my dick through layer after layer, fold after fold of hot, moist skin. Her tiny hairless hole was so tight that I could only go in a fraction of an inch at a time. Each time I pushed, her whole twat would go with me, and each time I stopped her hole would slowly ease it's way further down my dick, giving me the feeling of passing yet another fold of her inner skin.

I could tell that Pauline was experiencing some discomfort, but she was not protesting. This was a business deal. Both of us had a bargain to keep, and she was certainly going to keep hers. After all, it wasn't very often that a kid around here got a banana split.

I kept up my assault on her tight, hairless, virgin cunt. I had almost gotten my entire dick in her on the last push when I felt the bottom of her pussy come into contact with the head of my dick. The last push had only allowed her pussy to slip down my dick part of the distance of my thrust, and her tiny slit was just barely visible between her legs, my dick resting snugly between them.

Well, I was all of the way in now. We looked at each other, both of us breathing heavily as I stayed inside her for a moment, relishing the feeling of my cock buried deep inside this eleven-year-old's tight, hairless pussy.

"Pauline....," I managed to speak between gasps, "how about if I move my dick back and forth inside your pussy some? I'll still buy you a banana split!"

She lay there with my dick inside her for a moment, panting heavily as she thought before asking hoarsely, "How many times do you want to do it?"

I looked at her for a moment. I hadn't thought about that. How many times does it take before I can cum?

"I dunno...," I gasped, "maybe about...., a hundred?"

I hurried to quell the look of apprehension on her face by explaining, "A hundred times is not a lot. Hell...., I can count to a hundred in less than a minute!"

She looked at me for a moment, then nodded in agreement as I began to slowly withdraw my dick until it was about halfway inside her. As I withdrew, the inner walls of her pussy seemed to hold onto my dick, creating an effect similar to the one when I entered her.

Gradually I began pumping back and forth. The grip of her pussy, combined with the wetness and moisture was causing that familiar feeling deep within my loins. Her gasps became little "Ahh's" that came in time with each quickening thrust of my dick inside her.

I don't think I needed to bargain for "about a hundred times", as the combination of the feeling of her tight hairless cunt wrapped around my dick, the feeling of her tiny body under mine, and the fact that she was looking me right in the eyes as I fucked her brought me over the edge with the most ball busting orgasm I had ever had.

The force of my orgasm forced me to thrust completely inside of her, burying my dick to the hilt. I could feel the hard little nub of her cervix pressing against my cock head as I erupted spurt after spurt deep inside her preteen pussy. The amount of my jism was so much, and the room inside her was so little, that after I filled her preteen womb completely with my spunk, I began to feel it spurt out between my dick and the walls of her twat, running down onto my balls and between the crack of her ass.

I had expended so much energy on my orgasm that I collapsed on top of her, my dick still buried deeply inside her. I rolled over slightly and eased my dick back out of her tiny twat, and as my cock head emerged from between her hairless pussy lips, one last spurt of pent up jism held inside my dick from the tightness of her pussy splashed across the bare lips of her slit, covering them completely.

Our deal was done. It was late however, and the ice cream man had already gone by for the day. It was also getting on to be about supper time, so Pauline slipped out of the car and put her panties back on under her skirt, leaving my cum dripping out of that sweet hairless hole and soaking those pretty white cotton panties.

I saw Pauline around the neigborhood a lot after that. I heard from my freinds that she eventually fucked almost every other boy in the neigborhood, but we never again got together like that, nor did we ever speak of it again. Come to think of it, I never did buy her that banana split!

Re:Hmm (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792139)

.....Pauline is my sister...wait a sec....

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792305)

So you represent Nokia, Pauline is the nascent open source developer, and grandpa is... Microsoft?

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23794221)

Nokia is the 'sum of all pleasures' associated with this fucktasm. - The cum-dripping post-rape pussy is Linux/open-source. (Microsoft is the ice cream salesman, by the way.)

DRM and Freedom don't mix. (3, Insightful)

Odder (1288958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794553)

If Nokia allows me to remove the parts of their device that do SIM locking and DRM, they might as well not bother with DRM. Code that prevents me from removing such things violates GPL3 and Nokia will not be able to distribute any GPL3 code on a device like that. They won't even try if they believe what they tell others about respecting "intellectual property". A system that won't work if it's modified by the user is not a free system.

Nokia is not the real villain. US Cell phone companies may not allow free software devices to access their networks now or ever. This is probably what Nokia spokesmen think is the reality developers have to get used to. I'd rather get used to spectrum freedom [greaterdemocracy.org] and forget about US cell phone companies.

MOD PARENT DOWN (twitter) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23796565)

Please don't mod twitter up, these are his karma whoring alts: Erris, Mactrope, gnutoo, inTheLoo, willeyhill, westbake, Odder, ibane, deadzero

For more information, please see willyhill's journal post: http://slashdot.org/~willyhill/journal/ [slashdot.org]

The Bright Line (5, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23791899)

Looks like the Bright Line for me may be the Nokia label, if they are going to maintain their attitude.

Re:The Bright Line (5, Interesting)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792215)

I don't think Nokia is taking the wrong position here, they have to satisfy a number of different interests, and as long as they comply with the license terms of the software they use I don't see a problem.

The alternative is to choose a different OS to build on, and with some exceptions most open source advocates don't want to see that happen, because it would be bad for the platform if companies stop using it.

Re:The Bright Line (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792383)

The alternative is to design devices that don't use their infrastructure. The alternative is to deliver a product to consumers that allows them to flagrantly violate all the monopolistic regulations governing the airwaves, operate mesh networks for communications outside of centralized control, and send these bastards the way of the horse and buggy. These guys can be rendered redundant by simple pieces of hardware placed into a critical mass of hands. And, inevitably, eventually, thankfully... they will. Wonder of RMS will be demanding that they stick a GNU in the name. [gnu.org]

Re:The Bright Line (4, Funny)

deathy_epl+ccs (896747) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792565)

He's planning on being a little more insidious this time... he wants them to change the name to Gnokia.

Re:The Bright Line (1)

chamont (25273) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794183)

I've just started a new project based on this code. I'm calling it KGnokia.

Re:The Bright Line (3, Insightful)

NDPTAL85 (260093) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792743)

Thats more than a bit of wishful thinking. Most consumers don't care one bit what OS runs their phones. They're not in this for your revolution, princess.

Re:The Bright Line (2)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795031)

They may not care what OS it runs, but they know the difference between contracts and free.

Nokia makes and sells hundreds of millions (5, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792981)

Every year... They are basically doing what the OLPC people would love to do in their wettest dreams.

These guys can be rendered redundant by simple pieces of hardware placed into a critical mass of hands.
How many handsets do you make and sell?

You see, putting a "simple piece of hardware" into a critical mass of hands is not the same as copying a piece of software. It is a linear process, you need an infrastructure which can produce and distribute that critical mass of handsets and that requires a huge investment.

Getting Linux onto Nokia phones is a huge leap forward, it is a step past the desktop which is now largely irrelevant. As long as they stick to the GPL (and they will, their lawyers and developers will be perfectly aware of the issues) what they actually do with it is up to them. That is almost certainly going to include DRM, locked down hardware and patented software because that is what their customers (the mobile networks) demand of them.

But you know what? That phone is still a Linux box.

I say good luck to them.
 

Re:Nokia makes and sells hundreds of millions (-1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795053)

The handsets don't require a huge investment. They're cheap pieces of plastic. The cell phone companies exist in the way they do because they purchased broadcast monopolies from governments, and that is the only reason they exist. Everything else is subterfuge.

Re:Nokia makes and sells hundreds of millions (2, Interesting)

zblack_eagle (971870) | more than 6 years ago | (#23796555)

Handsets probably require a large investment for set up costs, but besides some outsourced components the variable costs would be cheap, yes. But the one thing I really don't get is how you're confusing the cell phone manufacturers with the cell phone service companies. Unless Nokia is a service provider somewhere, they didn't purchase any broadcast monopoly, though they might have had to pay to have their device certified to use the spectrum. But that's different.

With cell phones we have the same situation we have with television. With television the advertiser is the customer and the captive audience is the product. With cell phones in the instance of fixed term contracts, the service providers are the actual customer to the manufacturer. The manufacturers would be competing for what the service providers wanted, which would have been to lock down phones to keep consumers in contracts and maybe to force additional revenue streams by the arbitrary crippling of handset features. If the manufacturer didn't do that, the service provider would just have gone with a different manufacturer.

Re:The Bright Line (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792943)

as long as they comply with the license terms of the software they use I don't see a problem.
The GPLv3 forbids a lot of things Nokia wants to do.

it would be bad for the platform if companies stop using it.
It wouldn't matter much for the platform at all if companies continue to use it, but contribute nothing at all. In that case, they may as well not be using it.

Basically, Nokia has three simple options: Either play by the rules, pay me for my efforts, or don't use my code. That's one more option than you get with proprietary software, by the way.

Re:The Bright Line (5, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793103)

Huh? How does the GPLv3 even apply at all to separate code? I fail to see how simply running software alongside GPLv3 code suddenly causes the GPLv3 to apply to the entire platform or any other code running on it. If Nokia builds interfaces and media applications in userspace using their own code the GPLv3 has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, the kernel is GPLv2, so V3 is never going to apply to anything they do to the kernel anyway.

Like i said, they are going to avoid linux if the license issues become ridiculous, and FSF seems to want to push that direction even when companies comply in full.

What makes you think Nokia doesn't contribute back to Linux? You think the only value to be had comes from code being contributed back? Simply having the largest handset manufacturer in the world using Linux gives the platform legitimacy it otherwise DOES NOT HAVE. And in any case i question your implication that Nokia doesn't contribute anything to Linux.

As far as i can tell Nokia IS playing by the rules, the problem is the rules keep fucking changing.

Re:The Bright Line (5, Insightful)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793201)

The GPLv3 forbids a lot of things Nokia wants to do.
Slashdot can be frustrating at times, especially when people don't read the article pointed to before they comment. I sat down and spent two hours explaining that you can indeed do what Nokia wants in the context of GPL3, you just have to know how. And that's what this is about. Please do read it.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:The Bright Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793479)

Thanks Bruce. We at Noika are in the market for a certified GNU/Zealot consultant with decades of Pretend Internet Lawyer experience and terrible grooming, so we will be contacting you shortly to inquire into your rates.

Re:The Bright Line (2)

bytesex (112972) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794009)

I think it's safe to say that what Nokia wants is different from, and opposed to what RMS wants, even if both parties haven't come down to defining it to its legal-speak extremes. Because as long as there is a layer of software underneath your OS/userland that you're not allowed to modify to exercise your freedom to tinker and pass on, RMS will be opposed to it. He may not (yet) have worded it so in whatever the current version of the GPL is, but I do think that this is in his line of thinking.

I realize I am putting words into RMS's mouth here, and if I'm wrong, I apologize profusely, because I do respect his opinion. But all I can see here is something yet unforbidden.

Re:The Bright Line (3, Insightful)

HiThere (15173) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794751)

Now explain why we would want to help them.

GPL code can be used in a lot of ways, and perhaps Noika can use it in the way they desire. But I have no desire to help them in doing so. And I see no advantage in helping them in doing so.

I don't really see any advantage in Linux running on a lot of locked and sealed boxes, and that seems to be all that Noika is offering. I'm not really against allowing them to do that, as long as they abide by the licensing agreements. (I'm contemplating using AGPL from now on, though.) But I don't see ANY reason to help them. And I don't see any reason to use licenses friendly to their desires, when they so totally ignore mine.

Personally, if he can do what he wants with the existing licenses, it makes me think that perhaps the licenses need to be changed, but I'm not certain. We don't explicitly forbid using FOSS to send spam, so maybe this is also something that should be tolerated. But I put it in the same class, or possibly worse.

Re:The Bright Line (4, Insightful)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794945)

Now explain why we would want to help them.

If they paid some of us. I did explain that the Linux developers weren't going to be interested otherwise, but that Nokia could do what they wanted with their own paid engineers if they designed it the way I laid out. I will even help them, at my full consulting rate, if they want, and will put some of that back into my work on Free Software.

Meanwhile, I'm just out to dispel incorrect assumptions about Linux and the Linux developers. We are business-friendly, darn it. We're just not out to give business a gift.

Personally, if he can do what he wants with the existing licenses, it makes me think that perhaps the licenses need to be changed

When I wrote the Open Source definition, I prohibited the prohibition of any sort of field of endeavor whatsoever in an accepted Open Source license. It was a matter of making Open Source practical for people to use. RMS also rejects such a prohibition, and says we should speak out against unethical use rather than prohibit it in our licenses. This just came up in his statement about use of Free Software in the Oyster card system. The example I knew of then (the Berkeley Spice license prohibition on use by the police of South Africa) had persisted long past the end of apartheid, and thus had an effect opposite of what had been intended.

Bruce

Re:The Bright Line (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 6 years ago | (#23796035)

OK. When I said changing licenses, I meant along the lines of "I had been planning on switching from GPL2 to GPL3, but now I'm going to seriously consider the AGPL".

OTOH, I do consider what Noika's proposing as being more offensive than sending spam.

Re:The Bright Line (3, Interesting)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23796063)

I'm using AGPL for the software that runs Technocrat.net see the "Source Code" link at the bottom of the page there.

A good article as usual (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795851)

Although I agree with you about the bright lines, I doubt Nokia is going to want to play well with the open source folks.

For all of me they could put their magic phone bits on one corner of the board and connect it with some interface -- say ppoe over usb or ethernet or whatever. They can move the phone into the computer. That way my internet-everywhere device could use it like what it is -- a wireless modem.

I think what they want though is to move the computer into the phone. They want to build all of their DRM into the computer bits on the other side of your bright line so the providers can continue to make billions of dollars a year on ringtones and phone applications. That's a scheme I can't get behind and I won't be buying one of those. I'd rather just keep using the external cellular phone with USB for a remote broadband connection and remain able to install whatever software I want on the computer side of the USB cable.

Re:The Bright Line (4, Informative)

luca (6883) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794055)

Hey, Nokia is actually contributing developers and code to various projects, so they're not the kind that just takes without giving back. Maybe you're confusing them with broadcom.

Re:The Bright Line (4, Interesting)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793181)

and as long as they comply with the license terms of the software they use I don't see a problem.

Jaaksi never explained fully what the problem was but I suspect he was concerned with licensing, and upcoming licensing like GPL3 that tries even harder to enforce the freeness. I've shown that he can live with that without getting any concession from the developers regarding DRM, SIM locking, and bondage business models.

The problem for Nokia and all is that building modern operating system features is horribly expensive, and unjustifiable when they are already there for the picking, no charge. But they haven't quite figured out how to put the two pieces - free and proprietary - together in a way that satisfies everyone. I can tell them how. I'd really prefer that they paid for this sort of lesson, that is one way I support myself after all, but could not let such a public example of mistaken corporate strategic thinking about Linux pass by unchallenged.

Bruce

Re:The Bright Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792285)

Why would they care? If their attitude reduces costs/increases revenue by more than they'd lose from you and your peers opting out then it sounds like the right attitude for the company to have.

Re:The Bright Line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792905)

Looks like the Bright Line for me may be the Nokia label, if they are going to maintain their attitude.
I am using a MacBook, iWork and TimeCapsule. Not little surprised I found that Apple's word processor Pages do not have Norwegian spelling. A Norwegian dictionary is something even my little cell phone has.

My reason to switch to Mac was that I wanted a system in which all devices and applications are trimmed up against each other in order to communicate and synchronize perfectly.
Now I see that even dedicated and loyal customers will be closed out when it comes to Apple's mobile phone. After reading about the subject, this is just a continuation of a culture of Apple that goes back years and that represents a commercial greed that we do not find in the same extent at e.g. Microsoft.

My solution is to sell out: by by Apple.
It would be great if Nokia developed its own Linux-distribution, or enter into a close co-operation with, say Ubuntu.

Re:The Bright Line (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794051)

What I don't get is why these companies keep trying to screw over the GPL when there is BSD which has a license that'll let them do pretty much whatever they want. Which is kinda ironic when you think about it: All these companies who are so uptight and anal retentive when it comes to DRM and protecting "their" IP seem almost hellbent on stealing the work of all those GPL coders for their DRM schemes. Personally I'm tired of this "treat the customer like scum" routine and refuse to buy any DRM crap,period. But that is my 02c,YMMV

Insufficient Rights (2, Funny)

Save_Clippy (1254358) | more than 6 years ago | (#23791907)

You do not have sufficient rights to view comments before this one.

GPL v2 is fucking us over (-1, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792003)

Let this be a lesson to GPL v2 holdouts: You're now part of the DRM problem. GPL v3 is the solution. I know, Linux is (effectively) always GPL v2. I think we should thank move on to a new kernel that won't be an agent of the corporate DRM overlords. Unfortunately, HURD is more or less vaporware, however the *BSD kernel, the Darwin kernel, and the SunOS kernel are all available as FREE software.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792019)

Nope Nokia will just develop its own os or use netbsd.

Drm is here to stay whether we like it or not. Their whole business model is to lock up and take ownership of other people's phones so they can charge for apps and ringtones.

MS has interest in this too with TCPA and signed executables. Businesses want this too in an effort to prevent piracy. Future versions of windows will be locked to signed drm executables as well and its the wave of the future.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792225)

You should really spread the "signed binary" love around more, Apple is doing exactly that NOW on the iPhone, and lots of people think they want to do it on OS X as well at some point to stay ahead of any possible malware problems.

Consumer signed binaries date back two decades (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792475)

Apple is doing exactly that NOW on the iPhone
Atari beat Apple to the punch in 1984 with the lockout of the Atari 7800 game console [wikipedia.org] .

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over (3, Informative)

redxxx (1194349) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792417)

Drm is here to stay whether we like it or not. Their whole business model is to lock up and take ownership of other people's phones so they can charge for apps and ringtones.
No, their business model is to sell phones. Unfortunately, most phones are sold through phone companies, and that is their business model.

It's like google censoring itself in china. They want the market share, so morality suddenly becomes relative.

Their non-phone products,N8*0s for instance, are a lot more friendly, because they don't have to satisfy the demands of the damn telcos.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over (1)

AI0867 (868277) | more than 6 years ago | (#23796629)

Google does the same thing in france and germany to comply with local laws, albeit on a smaller scale.
It also delisted sites due to scientology DMCA complaints in order to comply with laws of the USA.

Though these are on a smaller scale, censorship exists in the "free world" as well.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over (3, Interesting)

grumling (94709) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792429)

Drm is here to stay whether we like it or not. Their whole business model is to lock up and take ownership of other people's phones so they can charge for apps and ringtones.



I'm not sure about that. Having used Verizion's standard LG software, and going to an S60 device has been night and day. I've had 0 problems setting up applications (non-signed apps just give me a warning), any song on the device can be set as a ringtone, etc. Heck, I can use the full bluetooth stack for OBEX push from my Linux laptop, and it just works.

Now, compare that to the Verizon experience: Download a ringtone? Sure, just open up "Get it Now." Install a Java app? Sure, it might be available as a BREW application, just open up "Get it Now." Download your pictures if you don't have a removable memory card? Sure, just e-mail it to yourself (at $0.25 each, re-compressed). Now, I'm comparing apples to oranges to some extent, since I'm comparing a standard phone to a smartphone, but even NOK's unlocked basic phone have a lot of possibilities available. If you want to see a locked environment, just visit your friendly Verizon store.

I did have to pay a premium for that freedom (full price for an unlocked phone), but not having to deal with some of the frustrations I used to deal with made it worth it. The phone companies are re-learning the lesson that the courts forced them to learn in the early 80s: if you let end-users use whatever they want on the network you'll get a lot more useage and more money for less effort. Right now they get a lot of incremental revenue from ring tones and other stuff. Eventually, the ring tone providers (record companies) will get stingy and want higher percentages, leading to inflation and people will just stop paying for them (and the boomer kids will get older and not bother anymore).

Specifically speaking to Nokia, I like most of what they are doing, thinking outside the box when it comes to some of their services. I doubt that the folks at AT&T would even come up with the Sports Tracker, for example. But even if they did, I'm fairly certain they would charge some crazy amount for it (I MIGHT pay an extra $0.50/month for it, but they'd want to charge $5.00 or more), make it incompatible with just about everything else on the planet, and make the UI so bad that it would be unworkable. And they aren't stopping anyone from writing their own Sports Tracker application. They just happen to have one available.

From the 10,000ft perspective, I think Nokia is not sure what to do. They have a lot of good products, want to see the world migrate to smartphones, but don't know how to do it. Their bread and butter is in cheap disposable phones that will stand up to harsh treatment. They see the iPhone and see that faster processors and better UIs are the way to go (although the basic S60 interface is just fine with me), but they are behind in this regard (not trying to sound like an Apple fanboy, just stating a fact). The N800 is a device that they had all set up to do a nice business as a webpad, but now the whole notion of a webpad is morphing into the UMPCs on the high end, and the eee-style super cheaps. I also don't think they counted on Apple doing well, and Jobs is stealing all their good ideas.

I think long term Nokia needs Linux to move ahead. S60 is nice, but isn't going anywhere. Android running on Nokia hardware would be fantastic. So would a real Debian based build (Ubuntu mobile?) with real support (Please fix the Gmail IMAP bug on my N800! It's been months). Nokia is already using it in a somewhat successful device (Internet Tablets), they've bought several open source companies, and it fits in well with their traditional model (they build hardware and license software with Symbian).

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over (4, Interesting)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792949)

> Drm is here to stay whether we like it or not.

I used to fear that would be true, and many would pronounce it as flatly as you just did only a year or two ago. But you are now the exception.

DRM is pretty much dead on music these days. DVD has been totally cracked for years now and the sky hasn't fallen, DVD sales are still good. The defunct HD-DVD was already cracked and BD's first line of defense has already fallen. It is only a matter of time before the advanced crypto falls. And it won't kill HD content sales when it happens. Eventually the fear, uncertainty and doubt in Hollywood will meet reality.

The cell phone industry is going to take a bit longer, especially with the government mixed up in things. But I'm betting DRM gets pushed back to the SIM within a decade. You can't really open up that lowest layer of the stack without rethinking the entire worldwide phone network so that will probably be with us a bit longer.

> Future versions of windows will be locked to signed drm executables
> as well and its the wave of the future.

Had Microsoft been able to force TCPA into Vista they probably would indeed been able to put us all into an X-Box Hell forever. But their window of opportunity has probably closed forever. By the time Windows 7 ships they aren't likely to have a monopoly anymore. Dominant, yes. Monopoly that can dictate who can and cannot sell software for Windows and demand a 'taste' of every sale X-Box style, no. Apple and ASUS have pretty much settled that question.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over (2, Insightful)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792149)

How is that GPLv2 causing a problem?

Fortunately, Nokia can do all that it wants with Linux, while being GPL2 and even GPL3-compatible

Apparently there are ways to separate things so that it is v3 compatible. No amount of "no DRM in GPL software" limitations is going to help if the people writing the DRM are able to sufficiently separate it such that the GPL license need not apply.

The misguidedness of DRM in the huge majority of situations is another matter, though.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792247)

Exactly, if Nokia wants to build proprietary applications on top of even a GPLv3 software stack they can do so and comply with all the licenses involved.

In fact, they can even use LGPL system libraries and dynamically link them in to a DRM app of some kind.

Of course the FSF hates that, and actively encourages people to license libraries under GPL itself, because they like to move the goalpost for developers and users a lot.

It may end up that building proprietary apps on a GNU/Linux platform means completely avoiding even the standard system libraries, if your app isn't GPL you can't use GPL system libraries at that point.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over (1)

uuxququex (1175981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792411)

It may end up that building proprietary apps on a GNU/Linux platform means completely avoiding even the standard system libraries, if your app isn't GPL you can't use GPL system libraries at that point.

And that would be the end of commercial development of software for GNU/Linux. Not saying it's good or bad, but that's what will happen.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over (2, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793035)

No amount of "no DRM in GPL software" limitations is going to help if the people writing the DRM are able to sufficiently separate it such that the GPL license need not apply.
If they are able to sufficiently separate it that the GPLv3 software isn't affected, then there's really no problem. GPLv3 isn't about preventing DRM, it's about preventing the use of DRM to close GPL software -- among other loopholes.

The classic example is Tivoisation. Tivo did release all the source for the GPL software they used. But they didn't provide any way of running a different version on your Tivo -- in fact, they went out of their way to prevent that, by signing the binaries.

A surprising example where the GPLv3 can happily coexist with DRM is the Playstation 3. You can install any Linux distro that will compile for it, and you can custom-compile everything. The catch is that it all runs inside a hypervisor (virtual machine), which prevents access to certain hardware. But since you are free to hack up the GPLv3 stuff, recompile it, and run it in exactly the same context as the original, it is GPLv3-compatible.

The misguidedness of DRM in the huge majority of situations is another matter, though.
Yes, it is. And it's important that we keep it a separate issue than GPLv3.

Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793693)

If they are able to sufficiently separate it that the GPLv3 software isn't affected, then there's really no problem. GPLv3 isn't about preventing DRM, it's about preventing the use of DRM to close GPL software -- among other loopholes.

My point was that the GP was trying to basically say the opposite - that GPLv3 would prevent a DRM situation that GPLv2 wouldn't. Given that Nokia are specifically separating things (in a similar way to the PS3, probably, from a legal stand-point at the least) then the GP's comment doesn't have any basis in anything.

I can see the aim of the DRM line in GPLv3, but I'm not sure about using it as it seems to be putting a 'political' bias on a technical license.

What's IMHO the problem here... (5, Interesting)

Enleth (947766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792029)

When I learned electronics, engineers built products by soldering together resistors and transistors. But today, the job of engineers is to build derivative works by combining units of intellectual property owned by third parties. That's not what they're trained for, and it's a mine-field of potential litigation for every company that puts software in its products
This is exactly why, while being fascinated with electronics and embedded systems, I don't want to work in the consumer product industry when I graduate. Even if the pure research work in the field pays less than product development. I feel that the "engineering" constrained by sales requirements and legal gibblerish is not really engineering anymore and, being able to see its outcomes - dozens of devices that show unspeakable amounts of absolute blockheadedness and lack of ANY thought in their design - I don't want to have anything to do with it.

Re:What's IMHO the problem here... (2, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792317)

Even if the pure research work in the field pays less than product development.

Don't go in to electronice research unless you have a passion for chip fabbing. If you want a researchy job where you get to build cool stuff, then you want a research job where you need to build said cool stuff to get the research done. You can get thin kind of thing in science research if you choose the right branch and department. Basically choose a field where building cool stuff is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Re:What's IMHO the problem here... (2, Insightful)

Enleth (947766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792505)

Actually I'm aiming for robotics, which is IMO one of the few electrical engineering-related fields where almost no typical consumer products exist, while there's plenty of research aimed at building cool stuff and, if one really needs more profits, quite a bit of industrial desgin, which actually isn't all that bad because most of the time the "customers" are engineers, too.

Re:What's IMHO the problem here... (1)

kipman725 (1248126) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793565)

I signed up for an EEE degree... I hope I don't end up destititute for laughing evertime somone says IP (what a silly term). Mabey I should learn madarin and move the china. I picked up a free book on analoug chip design and it looked like fun feild with lots of complex problems and scope for orginal solutions. Is this also infected with this IP crap? (ie you have to pay for each bandgap referance or something).

Re:What's IMHO the problem here... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792469)

> I feel that the "engineering" constrained by sales requirements and legal gibblerish is not really engineering anymore

As someone who works in the embedded software industry: engineering is all about creating something within those constraints; without them, it's not engineering anymore - it's research.

Re:What's IMHO the problem here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23795543)

Research with market constraints is engineering.
Engineering with legal gibberish is bureaucracy.

wait, what? (1)

KevMar (471257) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792043)

I figured you could seperate your code like this. But I didn't think you could distribute them together?

I guess they are not distributing it to anyone else, just useing it on their own devices.

So if I want to include some GPL2 code in my project, I have to seperate it into its own library or plug-in module. Then I don't have to release the rest of my code under the GPL2, just the other module? That does not sound right to me.

Re:wait, what? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792137)

You can include GPL code on a proprietary operating system. What is the difference here?

Re:wait, what? (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792277)

If your library is LGPL and you link to it dynamically you don't have to release as GPL any app making use of that library.

And, putting software on a device and giving it to users IS distributing it, if they mix GPL code into a proprietary DRM app or something, they must either stop using the GPL code or GPL their own app, simply saying "we just put it on the device" will get them sued.

Re:wait, what? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793065)

If your library is LGPL and you link to it dynamically you don't have to release as GPL any app making use of that library.
Actually, you can link it statically if you like, as long as you provide enough object files that your users can modify the LGPL library and relink it with your proprietary app.

Re:wait, what? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792303)

If you RTFA, you'll see that he explicitly recommends against dynamically linking proprietary with GPL code (the example being Linux kernel modules, but plugins or libraries applies equally). It's a legal gray area, he says, and the whole idea is BRIGHT lines, not gray ones.

You can write a program that uses public system calls (dbus calls, I think, or sockets would be the userland-to-userland equivalent). Or you can keep the Free Software away from the proprietary entirely.

This has nothing to do with distributing A and B together vs. separately. The issue is whether or not B is a derivative work of A and thus legal to distribute *at all*.

Re:wait, what? (3, Informative)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793253)

Not a library or plug-in module. It's got to be a separate program.

From the ones that infected the world with Symbian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792049)

The GPL keeps all those monopoly-centric manufacturers in check, fortunately.
The comment about the fact that they can do what they want with Linux while within the GPL boundaries, is both right and wrong.
Right from a legal POV, wrong because they CAN'T do what they want, because what they REALLY want is to lock down Linux beyond what allowed by the GPL.

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792061)

...will it run Linux?

He's right.. this is the future (4, Insightful)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792097)

This is exactly how digital restrictions of any kind can be compatible with free software. You have a division between free and non-free, and as Perens suggests, maybe it's the kernel/user interface, or physical separation, or a virtual machine. What matters is that the division exists and that it preserves all of the software freedoms that the licence requires.

Personally I think virtual machines are the way to go. You put your free software in one virtual machine and your GSM stack/software radio/DRM code/etc. in another, and run them both using a hypervisor. That way, you get all the benefits of free software without having to put the non-free components in hardware or on a separate CPU. Oddly enough, support for this kind of operation already exists in CPUs, e.g. ARM's Trustzone. Clearly manufacturers have been thinking about how to combine open software with secure components, and their solution is Perens' bright lines.

Virtualisation is exactly how we will get the flexibility and openness we need in small computers without losing the features that network operators demand. Of course it's not a pure free software system any more, but you don't have the source for your x86 CPU microcode, so you're already using a hybrid system that runs both free and non-free code. The best advice is not to worry about it, and enjoy the improved flexibility that you get from being able to run your own code on *most* of the system, instead of none of it.

Re:He's right.. this is the future (3, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792291)

Yea, but thats not enough for some people. TiVo didn't actually violate the GPL license either and they got attacked quite a bit.

Granted they made the hardware measure the boot process before allowing it to boot, but the core problem is the same.

People aren't going to be happy about a company using Linux on one hand, while locking the platform in some way.

Freedom to tinker will show its head here sooner or later.

Re:He's right.. this is the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792499)

People aren't going to be happy about a company using Linux on one hand, while locking the platform in some way.


These companies have the option of not using Linux - but purchasers would still re-engineer the product to better fit their desired use. There's only one problem here; simpletons who don't understand that DRM and technical restrictions are a joke!

Re:He's right.. this is the future (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792559)

Actually I've come to see the value of DRM, as long as you consider it to be very weak protection it works fine, granted its unnecessary in most cases but there are a few valid uses for it, like digital rentals.

Of course there are companies who want DRM to be a hard lock, unbreakable even if it screws over users in the process by breaking all sorts of other things.

Re:He's right.. this is the future (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794557)

Actually I've come to see the value of DRM, as long as you consider it to be very weak protection it works fine, granted its unnecessary in most cases but there are a few valid uses for it, like digital rentals.

Really? I -still- rent DVDs, and rarely bother to make a copy of them, despite that its trivially easy and takes only a few minutes.

If you rent a movie in itunes and it deletes it after its been watched, that will be enough for most people in most cases, even if the file isn't 'protected' beyond that. And if people DO keep a copy of it? So what? If you -could- buy the DVD in 'file form' without packaging, media, distribution, warehousing, and the end user took responsibility for making their own copy... it should really probably cost in the same ballpark as a rental anyway.

I have 500+ DVDs, but since buying a PVR, I buy and rent very few. The PVR I have makes it something of a pain to keep movies that I've recorded, but you know what, I couldn't care less...even if I could easily copy them the odds of me 're-watching' them is almost nil anyway -- there is always something new on the PVR.

Now I realize and agree that this model won't work for music because people will make and use copies. But then 'renting' music has NEVER been a successful business model.

Bottom line DRM doesn't really add anythign to the equation except make pirated media more usable than legally acquired media.

Re:He's right.. this is the future (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#23796163)

there are a few valid uses for it, like digital rentals.
There are a ton of nifty business models that would work if only (a) the laws of physics were different or (b) the government enforced people obeying alternate laws of physics as if they were the real thing.

Of course the cost to society of (a) or (b) is usually much higher than the value returned to society.

Re:He's right.. this is the future (1)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795707)

TiVo didn't actually violate the GPL license

I think they did.

The GPL says that if you distribute an executable, you have to make available *ALL* of the source you used to compile that executable. If you you distribute an executable for a Cray supercomputer, you cannot supply DIFFERENT source code sufficient for a similar program that would run on a Commodore64.

Unless I am mistaken, the TiVo executable has a signature added. That signature is, both in intent and in fact, a functional component of that intended executable. That signature is created and linked to that executable as the final step in compiling that intended final executable. The crypto key used to create that signature is in fact part of the source used and required to compile that executable. Failure to supply the FULL source used to make that executable is a violation of the GPL. They can't ship incomplete source sufficient to compile a similar but different(unsigned) executable that theoretically could run on some other machine.

TiVo knows damn well that an unsigned executable would be incomplete and non-functional if they were to ship it themselves along with with their TiVos. The key to make that signature is a functional part of the source for their intended executable. If they were to include that key then there would be no "TiVoisaztion" issue, we could use that key to successfully compile working modifications.

-

Re:He's right.. this is the future (2, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23796137)

You make perfect sense there I just don't believe you.

Code signing doesn't require what you describe, you can sign code that has already been compiled and a system can check that signature before running it.

What TiVo did to protect their systems was cause the firmware to measure the initrd and the initrd i believe measures the kernel, as far as i remember.

It's probably worth noting that Linus doesn't see any problem with what Tivo did, and in reality the core goal of the GPL is to make sure anyone who IMPROVES GPL software releases that code for use by others, especially for other uses.

So in that respect, everything TiVo has done to improve the software, even the kernel, has in fact been released as source. Nowhere in the GPLv2 does it say anything about being able to modify software in place, which is why they moved the goalpost with GPLv3 and abused the license to achieve things the original license had nothing to do with.

Re:He's right.. this is the future (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#23796209)

in reality the core goal of the GPL is to make sure anyone who IMPROVES GPL software releases that code for use by others, especially for other uses.
Bzzzzt.

  1. the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
  2. the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors,
  3. the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and
  4. the freedom to share the changes you make.
--The Foundations of the GPL [gnu.org]

In fact, you are free to improve the software all you want for your own personal use and there are no requirements to distribute the changes you've made.

Re:He's right.. this is the future (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23796631)

1. you are free to take the source TiVo releases and use it for whatever you want.

2. you can give it to anyone you want as per the GPLs terms.

3. you can modify the source and still use it for whatever you want.

4. you can give away the source you just modified in step 3 :D

Nowhere in that list does it say "modify in place". You can't possibly twist the definitions given there to include "i can do whatever I want with the hardware you sold me simply because you put Linux on it".

The GPL says you can change the software to suit your needs, for example Apple modifying CUPS to suit their own operating system, or Sun modifying GRUB to boot their own kernel, or indeed anyone taking TiVos modified GPL source and using those improvements elsewhere. They can't lock the code away after improving it, and they haven't done that. They release all source they are required to release, the rest of the software running on a TiVo machine you never had a right to use elsewhere or modify in the first place.

The GPL, and the code released under it that TiVo uses, doesn't dictate what you can or can't run on specific hardware. You are never going to convince me that TiVo should be required to let you run whatever you want on their hardware, and heres why. Take the DirecTivo for instance, this isn't just a MIPS or PPC box, it has DirecTV specific hardware in it including encryption keys, smartcard hardware and other systems designed to protect satellite broadcasts, something DirecTV goes to great lengths to protect and I assume TiVo is also obligated to protect as well. So taken as a whole, TiVo can't allow people to screw with parts of the system that may interfere with things you have no right to screw with, including the parts of the system that protect satellite broadcasts.

Somehow this situation with software licensing went from being one of protecting source code and keeping it available for others to use, into a political situation with the FSF attempting to dictate terms that have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting source code. You can't possibly argue that you should be allowed to screw with anything GPL software comes into contact with.

Re:He's right.. this is the future (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792315)

That way, you get all the benefits of free software without having to put the non-free components in hardware or on a separate CPU.
But you already don't have to use virtualization. There's nothing to stop me from writing and running compiled C code on top of a Linux kernel and glibc. If it were a problem, we wouldn't have closed applications like Google Earth or Skype. Both the Linux kernel and glibc contain necessary license exceptions which allow this to happen.

Why add the overhead of virtualization if it's not necessary?

Re:He's right.. this is the future (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792501)

But you already don't have to use virtualization. There's nothing to stop me from writing and running compiled C code on top of a Linux kernel and glibc.
There's also nothing stopping you from running a debugger on this compiled C code. Nokia wants to stop end users from using a debugger to defeat digital restrictions management.

Re:He's right.. this is the future (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792527)

Isn't a hypervisor essentially a debugger for virtual machines? What I mean is, it's my understanding that virtualization is built on the same technology that debuggers use, with some extra support for it added in the processor. Do I misunderstand?

Re:He's right.. this is the future (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792795)

Isn't a hypervisor essentially a debugger for virtual machines?
Yes, but the TPM is there to make sure that the hypervisor that your program runs on is identical to the hypervisor that it was intended to run on, not someone else's debugging hypervisor.

Re:He's right.. this is the future (4, Informative)

MtHuurne (602934) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792511)

For simlocks and other limitations that are close to the hardware this approach could work. I believe Sony does something like this for PS3 Linux.

For DRM, it will be more tricky: if for example video goes through an open source layer anywhere between decryption and the video RAM, it can be intercepted. But if that entire path is closed, it will not be easy to make it integrate nicely with the open parts of the system.

Some of today's phone have even more limitations, such as forcing the user to download ringtones, wallpapers, songs etc. exclusively from the telco's portal. Or the iPhone SDK license, which forbids VOIP applications from using the telco's data connection. Limitations like this cannot be enforced on any system that deserves the predicate "open". I don't know if that is Nokia's problem or the telco's, but in a market where telcos subsidize phones, they have a lot of influence on the hardware manufacturers.

Simple (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792181)

All of the Free Software goes on one side of that line, and all of the lock-down stuff on the other side.

Free stuff on the Linux partition, locked-down stuff on the Vista partition. :-)

How Nokia and Linux Can Live Together (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792211)

Nokia and Linux can live together by Linux and all its users fucking killing themselves. You nerds are the reason my dog is dead after the local Linux 'support group' came around and stuck it's severed head through my mailbox because I dared to tell you delinquents that I preferred using Windows instead of your crappy illegal hacker OS. You fucking nerds couldn't face a 6' 4" built guy like me man to man so you killed my fucking dog. Fuck you, I hope you rot in hell.

Re:How Nokia and Linux Can Live Together (1)

Iceykitsune (1059892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792309)

someone mod him -1, flamebait, troll PLEASE

Re:How Nokia and Linux Can Live Together (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792605)

someone mod him -1, flamebait, troll PLEASE
Yeah, we really needed that pointless note of shrill, oversincere urgency; like anyone was going to take it seriously in the five seconds before it would have got modded down regardless.

And as trolls go, at least it was so over the top implausible that it was funny. I mean, everyone knows it's the FreeBSD users that kill their critics' dogs, not Linux fanboys. Mind you, Linus Torvalds did eat my hamster [wikipedia.org] , the bastard.

Re:How Nokia and Linux Can Live Together (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793289)

Actually, Linux really did kill a dog [slashdot.org] .

linux users' translation (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792337)

All of the Free Software goes on one side of that line, and all of the lock-down stuff on the other side."

With the trash can being positioned just on the other side of the line...

who says we want to "live with" them? (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792401)

What does Nokia produce? Hardware, software, and services. There are dozens of other phone hardware manufacturers producing devices that are at least as nice as Nokia's. Their software breaks down into buggy and slow proprietary stuff, and some open source components that are so tightly integrated that they can't be improved. And their services are an attempt to squeeze extra revenue from phone buyers.

So, why should I as a user want to "live with" Nokia? They happen to be the best of the current crop of proprietary phone manufacturers, but that's a low standard indeed. I don't want to "live with" them, I want to replace them, as quickly as possible.

I have a Nokia phone right now, but give me Linux on an HTC phone any day over a Nokia.

When the GPL is an issue, why not use BSD? (1)

siDDis (961791) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792457)

What's wrong with building embedded devices based on BSD, is the Linux kernel really that superior when it comes cell phones?

Re:When the GPL is an issue, why not use BSD? (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792603)

Linux is buzzwordy, mostly.

Re:When the GPL is an issue, why not use BSD? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795473)

'Buzzwordy' maybe. But does it run on toasters [embeddedarm.com] ? :)

Fuck DRM, we dont' need Nokia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792479)

Fuck DRM. They can go shove it up where the sun don't shine.

We don't need Nokia.
If they want to play ball with us, then thats fine. But if try to bring DRM into the game, we wont play.

Don't try to keep your business model alive... (2, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792599)

...with DRM. Nokia is just another company in the long line of companies that have to learn this or die.

How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine... (5, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792735)

(1) Open the cell networks

(2)Sell flat-rate or simple tiered access to the network

(3)Sell a range of solutions, from bare bones "modems" to full-fledged gadgety smartphones

(4)Stop trying to tell us what software and hardware we're allowed to fucking use on that network

(5)Profit!!!

It could all be so simple, were the bastards not so greedy . There are plenty of idiots who would still happily buy pink Razrs and crappy ring tones...

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine (2, Insightful)

lazyforker (957705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793499)

(4)Stop trying to tell us what software and hardware we're allowed to fucking use on that network

I think most sysadmins/network engineers would agree that the network owners are totally within their rights to limit/approve/control/monitor the h/w and s/w in use on their networks. The network owners are trying to provide the most stable environment for the largest number of paying customers.
I don't work for a telco but I do like to have a very reliable cell network (especially since I have no landline, voip etc).

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23793957)

That argument works for a network which is only for your machines and your employees. It doesn't work for an ISP.

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine (3, Interesting)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794799)

We do have this great big contrary example of the Internet. It interoperates really well where the standards are followed. The stability problems that exist are mostly due to malware, and exist on closed networks too, and can be managed, although Microsoft isn't a good example of how to manage them.

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795603)

Well, a giant amount of traffic on the backbone is spam, viruses, and illegal copying, so I can't really blame the telcos for not wanting their networks to turn into that ...

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine (2, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 6 years ago | (#23795609)

You can already buy phones that don't use DRM or sim locking. You just have to pay the full manufacturing cost. As it turns out a lot of people like to get the handsets subsidised and deal with the DRM. I guess I don't see the issue here.

GPLv4 needed I guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23792803)

If this shit pulls a tivo and violates the spirit of the v2 and v3 licenses without perhaps violating the letter, we need to plug the holes. I wonder if the wording of perhaps some larger modus operandi should be changed to avoid these arms races with the unethical corporate types...

There's a quote that goes something like 'all it takes for the bad people to win is the good guys to do nothing'. It's a sad world out there.

Nokia to Open Source Hackers (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23792931)

How can I have your cake and eat it too?

Slightly OT (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793131)

All this talk about openness vs. Nokia, brings bad memories to me. Has anyone tried to use a Nokia(or sony) provided USB cable to transfer data from a PC to a non-memory-expansible cell phone? "Hellish nightmare" is the least I can call it, really, where the cell phone makers trying hard to make our lives as hard as heck?

Nokia (1)

whitespiral (941984) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793447)

Nokia can try "their way" all they want. But one day another phone maker will understand and apply the open source way to their products, and then they will kick Nokia's ass big time. It's their choice.

Bright line?!?!? (1)

kipman725 (1248126) | more than 6 years ago | (#23793503)

How about the bright line of the DRM crap where you have controll and the free software where I have control. OK? propritry software has no place on an open system. My soultion in this particuar battle is to only use non-free software absolutly needed and replace as soon as freesoftware is usable.

What is a derivative work? (1)

saltydog56 (1135213) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794085)

Am I the only one that believes that the FSF and others benefit from the gray area surrounding the question âoewhat is a derivative workâ and would be disappointed if the courts came up with a hard and firm definition of what constitutes a derivative work?

The term derivative work seems to have a lot of "creep" in it, and seems to serve the goals of RMS and the FSF very well.

Re:What is a derivative work? (4, Informative)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23794733)

FSF is trying to get the most possible out of a unilateral-permission-based license rather than a contract-based one. If courts tightened up the definition of a derivative work, FSF might be forced to go to a contract-based license. Certainly that would let them control what is done with the software more than they do now. They would not have to concern themselves about the boundaries of derivative works. And yet they have refrained from taking that step so far, because they don't want to restrict you from doing anything that you would otherwise have the right to do. They feel that would reduce your freedom.

Bruce

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?