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!

FSF Rattles Tivo Saber At Apple

kdawson posted about 7 years ago | from the interesting-to-try-and-prove-that dept.

GNU is Not Unix 571

Ohreally_factor takes us back to Friday when both the iPhone and the GPLv3 were released. "This article at Tectonic suggests that Apple's iPhone might run afoul of the GPL. Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF is quoted as saying: 'Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner. We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work — it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software.' Might there really be GPLed code in the iPhone? It's well known that OS X built on BSD, which of course uses the BSD license. Webkit is based on KHTML which uses the LGPL."

cancel ×

571 comments

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

How isn't this FUD? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728125)

If there isn't any evidence of GPL violation, why make the accusation?

This is despicable sensationalism, and not what I'd expect from the FSF.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728145)

Ha! This is exactly what I'd expect from the FSF.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (4, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 7 years ago | (#19728375)

This is exactly what I'd expect from the FSF.

Yes, it is. Fortunately.

Context is everything, and unfortunately, TFA doesn't provide a great deal, but most likely Brown was responding to statements like this from Steve Jobs;

"You don't want your phone to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the provider's network, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."
Jobs' statement is FUD and needs to be challenged.

The role of the FSF is to promote freedom of software and computing platforms. Systems like the iPhone which are closed to their owners as a matter of policy rather than technology are the antithesis of what the FSF stands for.

The comment from Peter Brown calling the iPhone crippled is accurate in the context of the FSF's mandate, and is an appropriate stance for the FSF to adopt. There's a better article here http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/iphone [fsf.org] that summarises their attitude.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (1, Insightful)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 years ago | (#19728431)

"You don't want your computer to be an open platform," meaning that anyone can write applications for it and potentially gum up the Internet, says Jobs. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cox doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."

What a prat.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (2, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 7 years ago | (#19728483)

If you don't agree with what it "stands for", here is a real simple solution, DON'T BUY ONE!

See, was that so hard? You can buy your openMoko or whatever and be happy, and someone who has a different set of priorities than you do can buy the iPhone and be happy. Why does that bother some people? My personal opinion is that some FSF zealots see their cause as a religion and they cannot rest until they convert the "unbelievers" by whatever means necessary.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (3, Insightful)

IDontAgreeWithYou (829067) | about 7 years ago | (#19728547)

Exactly, when I see a statement like this:

...a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner.
I have images in my head of my iPhone stealing my money, calling my boss and telling him off, etc. Maybe, just maybe, it will do everything that owners want it to do (make phone calls, play music, surf the net). Granted there may be some things I would like it to do that it won't. Buy something else then.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728553)

You mean, there are some people who don't care about freedom? really? What's the whitehouse phonenumber again?

Re:How isn't this FUD? (2, Insightful)

bheer (633842) | about 7 years ago | (#19728191)

Because the GPL3 is not about "free as in liberty", it's about "free as in do what RMS says". This is fine if you agree with RMS, but you should be aware that there are a lot of people, including people who've made valuable contributions to open-source, who don't.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (1, Insightful)

mr_matticus (928346) | about 7 years ago | (#19728267)

And thanks for that. RMS is a blowhard jackass. "Free" software isn't actually free, and now with v3 it's even less free. I know, I know, they needed to restrict your freedoms in order to guarantee them, because $EVIL_ENTITY would abuse the software otherwise.

What is the point of "free" software that you can't actually do as you please with? It's just trading one set of shackles for another. That's all fine and dandy if the RMS shackles don't bother you, but somehow it's still evil and despicable when the {Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc.} shackles don't bother you. Hypocrisy at its finest. I don't have a problem with either, but I'm really tired of being attacked by FOSS zealots because I don't think closed-source is a crime against humanity. Why shouldn't people get to make their own decisions about how public or private they want to make their work?

"Free" software is great. It's awesome for everyone it works for, and there's some great products. But it certainly isn't the solution for everyone, particularly for companies who want to share with the community but don't want to give up the farm. The LGPL isn't great about that, and v3 just makes things worse. If I invite you over for wine and cheese, I didn't sign up to have you clear out my whole wine cellar and order $1700 cheese wheels from Italy on my dime, you know?

Re:How isn't this FUD? (3, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 7 years ago | (#19728479)

What is the point of "free" software that you can't actually do as you please with?

You're allowed to do far more with free software, then you're allowed to do with Apple's software. Redistribute it under the terms you received it for instance.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (-1, Troll)

mr_matticus (928346) | about 7 years ago | (#19728495)

But you're not allowed to do whatever you want with it, and you're not actually giving it away free of restrictions.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (2, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 7 years ago | (#19728561)

But you're not allowed to do whatever you want with it, and you're not actually giving it away free of restrictions.

*shrug* noone's ever said it was free of restrictions. Something completely free of restrictions doesn't require a license, as it's in the public domain.

It's far more free than Apple's proprietary offerings however - you are free to use the software however you like.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728563)

Essentially, the restriction you get with GPL is that you can't add restrictions to keep people from using the source code. That includes using software patents and the DMCA to keep people from using the source code now that the GPL3 is out.
Let me explain it as clearly as I can: Going by the standard of the GPL, your freedom does not include the freedom to take mine away.
You can still think that the GPL is evil and removes freedom, but don't be afraid to change your mind about something. It's not healthy to remain too static in one's world view.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | about 7 years ago | (#19728575)

You can do absolutely anything you want whatsoever with the software with absolutely no limitations at all, provided you don't distribute the software. If you choose to distribute then other people get the same freedoms to do absolutely anything they want.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (5, Informative)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | about 7 years ago | (#19728513)

Hypocrisy at its finest. I don't have a problem with either, but I'm really tired of being attacked by FOSS zealots because I don't think closed-source is a crime against humanity. Why shouldn't people get to make their own decisions about how public or private they want to make their work?
You're making a jackass argument. NOBODY is forcing you to release your code under the GPL, much less GPL v3. If you really don't care what people do with your code then release it under another open source license like BSD. The problem arises when you're taking other people's code that they have chosen to license under the GPL willingly and modify it to suit your needs only to release it as part of your proprietary package without releasing your changes under the GPL as the license requires. If you don't want to share in the software then DON'T USE GPL'd code in your project! It's as simple as that!

Re:How isn't this FUD? (2, Insightful)

mr_matticus (928346) | about 7 years ago | (#19728537)

You're making a jackass argument. NOBODY is forcing you to release your code under the GPL, much less GPL v3. If you really don't care what people do with your code then release it under another open source license like BSD.
You're making a fool of yourself with your inattention to the text. I specifically said I don't have a problem with free software licensing. They have every right to create a license which suits their desires and to stipulate whatever restrictions. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the FOSS zealotry that refuses to accept that anything outside the GPL as being a valid approach to doing software. That includes proprietary licenses, the BSD license, and Creative Commons. It continues to the asinine "libre" descriptor--no such thing. True libre code wouldn't come with a license at all. It would be released upon the world for whatever purpose anyone wanted it.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (2, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | about 7 years ago | (#19728357)

So if you don't agree with it, why contribute?

I don't submit patches to BSD licensed projects, then whine because my code is used in a way that I don't like. I just don't send any patches in the first place.

It should be noted that the purpose of the GPL isn't world dominance, so the fact that there are people who disagree with the ideas isn't a big loss.

*Users'* freedom (5, Insightful)

DrYak (748999) | about 7 years ago | (#19728363)

Because the GPL3 is not about "free as in liberty", it's about "free as in do what RMS says".


As often said, (L)GPL is about protecting the freedom of the *USERS*.
GPL serves to basically grant to USERS freedom to do whatever they want with code, as long as they pass along the same freedom, shall they decide to distribute the code (ie.: they have to transmit the code and the same freedom to the next in line).

Yes, it does restrict professional developpers', manufacturers' and other corporates' freedom. But the GPL was always centered around the user.

The problem that the FSF is trying to bring attention to is that with iPhone those users' freedoms aren't preserved. There is code covered by GPL or LGPL version 2 or previous inside the iPhone. One well known exemple is WebKit/KHTML.
You bought the iPhone, and you own it, it's yours. You got the software running on the iPhone, and you can get the source code for (L)GPLed elements from the web.
BUT you can't do whatever you want to do with it : you can't recompile it and put a new version.

Let's say that KHTML gets some upgrade making it better support newer standarts (strong standart support has always been KHTML/Webkit's selling argument). Or let's say GCC or some other compiler project (be it closed or open source) release a newer compiler version which compiles much faster code, and produce faster software.
The "do-whatever-you-want" freedom to tinker should allow you to rebuild the webkit component in the iPhone (and having either a better or a faster one, according to the previous scenarios).
*BUT* you can't actually upload the newly produced firmware, because the iPhone is DRMed to the bone with Trusted Computing chips, and as such does only run signed and crypted code. The DRM architecture in the iPhone takes away your freedom as an end user to play around with FLOSS inside the firmware.
The only hope for you is to wait and hope that Apple will release a newer firmware with an upgraded WebKit and/or recompiled faster. And hope that Apple won't act like other phone manufacturer ("Sorry this new feature [which btw is only a matter of software support] is only supported in our newer Phone model. Buy it now and enjoy support for newer web-stantard or whatever else").
Once again tivoization occurs.

The speculation of the article ask an open question about what is the long term impact of GPLv3 on this kind of behaviour.

This is an interesting thing to ask oneself. It brings lot of questions about the future :
- Will companies start to think of strategies to let the user tinker the GPL parts (special signing keys for the GPL modules can be ordered from the manufacturer that allow to use modified GPL code in the firmware, while everything else is still restricted) ?
- Will manufacturer start forking project (Apple's forks staying GPLv2, while opensource projects slowly make transition toward GPLv3) ? And which manufacturer will be able to sustain their own fork, or will most of that forking will lead to poorly maintained projects ?
- Or will manufacturer simply stop using GPL code at all and slowly switch to more corporate-friendly instead of user-friendly license like BSD ?
- And will Apple try to bribe the FSF by offer free iPhone, please ?

Re:*Users'* freedom (2, Insightful)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 years ago | (#19728393)

*BUT* you can't actually upload the newly produced firmware, because the iPhone is DRMed to the bone with Trusted Computing chips, and as such does only run signed and crypted code. The DRM architecture in the iPhone takes away your freedom as an end user to play around with FLOSS inside the firmware.

And how is this not in breach of section 6 of the LGPL 2.1? [gnu.org]

[...]
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.

Seems to me that "data" includes their signing keys :-)

"Sensationalism" is correct. (4, Insightful)

Saint Fnordius (456567) | about 7 years ago | (#19728209)

This is a base attempt to get attention, to get some of the bigger press outlets to look at them. I suspect that they are in reality simply resenting that the iPhone buried almost all awareness of the GPL3 release, and are now desperate for attention.

A slashdot wedgie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728371)

This is despicable sensationalism, and not what I'd expect from the FSF.

And yet sensationalism is exactly what I expect from Apple, and it's about the iPhone, which is sensational, but it's also about the GPL, and I wouldn't expect the FSF to do this, so it can't be sensational, and yet sensationalism makes sense when you're talki -- *brain explodes*

Re:How isn't this FUD? (5, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | about 7 years ago | (#19728379)

Why not link to the original article [fsf.org] on the FSF website? (Tectonic isn't respecting the copyright of the FSF article "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.")

Slashdot is spreading the FUD here, the FSF isn't making an accusation: "it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software" isn't an accusation, neither is "What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices like the iPhone?".

Re:How isn't this FUD? (5, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 7 years ago | (#19728497)

So, a statement like "It will be interesting to see to what extent Richard Stallman has sexually abused male platipi" isn't an accusation? And how about "What impact will laws against animal-sex have on the long-term prospects for people like Richard Stallman?"?

Actually, the words "to what extent" imply that there is _some_ extent to begin with. The mere fact that they make these statements imply that they think their words have any significance at all.

My thought is that this is just the zealot RMS who can't stand people using other open licenses than GPL and just wants to start a pissing-match. I'm assuming the BSD supporters won't be impressed.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728503)

There's nothing wrong with the press release, it's Peter Browns sound bite that's the problem. Neither KHTML or any core components of OSX (Samba isn't a core component) are covered by the GPL. The quote reads like a thinly veiled threat and it's the kind of nonsense many FSF supporters try to disassociate themselves from.

I'm not about to move any of my projects to GPL3 if this is how the FSF are going to conduct themselves. If this happens again, I'll be considering relicensing my GPL2 works out of sheer embarrassment.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728421)

Actually, this is JUST like FSF.

Whenever a well hyped and media attention garnering product gets released, the first thing FSF does is point out something that irks them in it (and god forbid if it isn't completely free, open source and the devs aren't starving or paid by publicly funded institutions - I mean making money is a sin and anyone doing so should be stoned to death..)

THEY HAVE NOT MADE THE GODDAMN ACCUSATION! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728481)

Everyone implying so seems to be the FUD here. Seriously, the article doesn't say anything about it, the /. headline is WRONG, plain and simple, and now all the comments on /. are already about how horrible FSF is. Come the fuck on, people! This is beyond ridiculous.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (1)

krenaud (1058876) | about 7 years ago | (#19728489)

Have you read TFA? Nobody accuses anybody for any violations.

Here is a quote from TFA which I think summarises what it is about:

"The iPhone is leaving people questioning: Does it contain GPLed software? What impact will the GPLv3 have on the long-term prospects for devices like the iPhone that are built to keep their owners frustrated? Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF said, "Today, Steve Jobs and Apple release a product crippled with proprietary software and digital restrictions: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner."

Re:How isn't this FUD? (1)

b1ufox (987621) | about 7 years ago | (#19728501)

Hey, thats right. But atleast FSF needs a PR stuntman like Ballmer.

Let them try and realize whats wrong with this *cheap* PR stunt[if it is indeed].

Get the popcorn! (0, Offtopic)

xtracto (837672) | about 7 years ago | (#19728531)

Wow, two of the most defended groups featured together for a fight... it will be nice to read all the ultra-zealotry comments on slashdot hahah.

Re:How isn't this FUD? (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#19728543)

If there isn't any evidence of GPL violation, why make the accusation?

This is despicable sensationalism, and not what I'd expect from the FSF.


Funny thing is, Microsoft promotes the exact same sentiment towards businesses regarding GPL. Microsoft believe it's harmful to free software, FSF believe it's beneficial.

One of them is dead wrong.

"Run afoul?" (-1, Redundant)

mr_matticus (928346) | about 7 years ago | (#19728135)

Since when does the *use* of (L)GPL software in a product (anyone's product, even, say, the Zune), make it run afoul of the (L)GPL? Seems to me that since the content-free accusation pertains to GPL v3 (which, as we all know, was released on the same day as the iPhone), it's just another crappy Slashdot story. Nothing the iPhone has on it (or any other consumer device introduced this past month) has GPL v3 software in it.

Mentioning WebKit in the summary is also quite the ballsy move, since Apple's WebKit contributions to KHTML are among the biggest known returns to "free" software by a proprietary Fortune 500 company.

Re:"Run afoul?" (3, Insightful)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 years ago | (#19728179)

If they're using LGPL'd code in the iPhone they must allow the owner to re-link his iPhone against new versions of the LGPL'd code.

I.E. The iPhone becomes a programmable platform.

Re:"Run afoul?" (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 7 years ago | (#19728203)

Why's that then?

Re:"Run afoul?" (4, Informative)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 years ago | (#19728315)

From the LGPL V2.1:

5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.

So if the iPhone contains LGPL code the non-LGPL parts are covered by section 6:

6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.

You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:

        * a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
        * b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
        * c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.
        * d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified materials from the same place.
        * e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.

For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
[...]

Re:"Run afoul?" (1, Insightful)

mr_matticus (928346) | about 7 years ago | (#19728205)

Ultimately, it's immaterial, as all the LGPL content in the iPhone is 2.1. If one of the copyright owners switches to GPL v3, then all Apple has to do is stop using that code. They're not required to comply with GPL v3 simply because it now exists. The v2.1 code is what they licensed; they're not required either to upgrade to or to accept the v3 license.

Re:"Run afoul?" (3, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#19728309)

Even then, wouldn't the new license only apply to new releases?

If the GPL v3 was retroactive, Tivo would have to recall all their boxes right this second. However, I don't think you can have a retroactive license. You can't invent terms today and say that people agreed to them in the past.

Can you imagine what that would open the door to?

I'm sorry, you inherently agreed to anything Microsoft ever wants from you when you agreed to use any flavor of Windows at any point in your life. We can invent new licenses and terms that go back and override any previous license agreements.

Re:"Run afoul?" (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | about 7 years ago | (#19728335)

Absolutely correct. Why the parent was modded insightful is beyond me.

There is no way a license, even one so scathingly viral as (L)GPL, can change the terms in the future and force you to comply. It is simply not legal, though maybe the "copyleft" fantasy land has that concept, enforced by unicorn police.

New license (2, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#19728405)

I think we do need a new license for OSS projects, and it isn't GPL v3. Consider this scenario:

BSD licenses allow for people to take and never give anything back. The GPL has evolved into its own form of shackles, loopholes and lengthy clauses. CC is a pretty decent concept to protect your work. Sun has been under all this pressure to GPL Java for ages. Adobe releases API and code for certain products and technologies like Flash and PDF, but needs to protect their interests. What if I have a technology that I wish to be fairly open, and allow the community to help develop. I want people to be able to see the libraries and API to extend the technology. But I also need to protect against forking and theft.

What we need is a license that is simple and short like a BSD license but provides these basic functionalities.

1 - The material may be distributed freely so long as the copyright and license agreement stays with it.
2 - The material may be altered for personal use and/or community development.
3 - If you choose to alter the material, if requested, you must pass your changes upstream to be reviewed.
4 - You may not distribute forks or derived materials without explicit permission. For this there would be a specific license to grant a "fork" which also must remain open to allow changes to drift back upstream.

Wouldn't a license like this be absolutely perfect for a great deal of scenarios?

Java, Flash, and PDF technologies could be protected from forks and theft, but we could compile plugins for any OS and architecture. This license would also be perfect for NVidia or ATI's drivers. ATI could open their drivers without fear of NVidia stealing technology, because NVidia can't fork it, or take part of it without explicit permission, and vice-versa. This would save these companies money by allowing the community to develop and maintain ports of their software products.

Imagine how this would apply to Tivo.

Let's say Tivo and the software they use is now part of license X. Since the source is open, you can install upgrades, recompile, or even tweak and extend the software on your personal box. Tivo wants to protect themselves that they aren't losing on the service. They can ask to see modifications that people make, which is a provision of the license, and thusly keep on pace with the hackers to make sure they aren't circumventing the Tivo service.

Honestly, if Tivo did such a thing, most of the hackers would buy Tivo boxes, and likely even pay for the service instead of circumventing it. Now they'd have an easier, and legal method to extend their boxes, fully supported by Tivo. Add new codecs, or features, or heck run an emulator on your Tivo box.

Seriously, someone with any legal knowledge should draft such a simple license.

Re:"Run afoul?" (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 years ago | (#19728331)

LGPL V2.1 imposes the same "user must be allowed to re-link" condition that LGPL V3 does - it's its whole raison-d'être.

Re:"Run afoul?" (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 7 years ago | (#19728229)

Where does it say that in the LGPL? (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html)

Re:"Run afoul?" (1)

Gorath99 (746654) | about 7 years ago | (#19728381)

IANAL, but I'd say that it says so in section 4 (specifically 4d) of the LGPL v3 and sections 5 and 6 of the LGPL v2.1.

Excerpted from v3:

4. Combined Works.

You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications, if you also do each of the following:

[...]

d) Do one of the following:

        * 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
        * 1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version.


Excerpted from 2.1:

5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.

However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.

[...]

6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.

You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:

        * a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
        * b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the library already present on the user's computer system, rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
        * c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.
        * d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified materials from the same place.
        * e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy.

GPL 3 (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#19728301)

That is a big aspect of the GPL v3, the Tivoization clause, allowing you to do whatever you want with the hardware you purchase if it includes any GPL-based software.

However, that does not apply to earlier versions of the license.

That is why Tivo can still operate.

I won't bother to argue whether or not the clause is good, or if Tivo is evil, rather I would refer you to the huge lkml.org flamefest from the past two weeks. However, I should clarify this is clearly FUD. Even if the iPhone has GPL or LGPL'ed content, and there is no evidence to suggest that, it wouldn't be a violation, unless it was GPL v3 content, and Apple decided to lock people out.

Re:GPL 3 (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 years ago | (#19728343)

Yes, but we're talking about LGPL, not GPL, and the LGPL says you must let the user re-link.

Re:GPL 3 (2, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#19728487)

The supposition hangs on two points. First, that the iPhone is using LGPL code. The second is that Apple intends to violate the license and not allow for people to install updates.

Given that the phone has a browser, and that it can sync with iTunes, applying updates is something that is built into the system. iPods update their firmware when you sync them.

If you have proof the phone has LGPL software, and that Apple intends to refuse updates, then by all means get upset. Until then, this is still FUD.

Re:GPL 3 (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 years ago | (#19728549)

Well, I did say "if the iPhone includes..."

According to http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=244627&c id=19728215 [slashdot.org] the "Settings/About" option lists the licenses for the included software, and includes the LGPL.

The LGPL doesn't say that Apple have to release updates, it says that the user has the right to update the software with new versions of the LGPL software.

Re:GPL 3 (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 7 years ago | (#19728519)

Yes, but it falls under the same umbrella as Tivoization - you may relink the software, to run on some other hardware but you've got no promise it'll run on your iPhone any more than your custom kernel will run on your Tivo. No other hardware? Well, I think that's where you replace "2. ???" in your business plan.

Re:GPL 3 (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 years ago | (#19728585)

Yes, but it falls under the same umbrella as Tivoization - you may relink the software, to run on some other hardware but you've got no promise it'll run on your iPhone any more than your custom kernel will run on your Tivo.

Depends how one interprets:

For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it.

Re:GPL 3 (1)

massysett (910130) | about 7 years ago | (#19728551)

unless it was GPL v3 content

Considering that the GPL v3 was released mere hours before the iPhone, it's impossible that the device incorporates any code licensed under GPL v3.

I really don't see the point of this story...

Re:"Run afoul?" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728273)

Since when does the *use* of (L)GPL software in a product (anyone's product, even, say, the Zune), make it run afoul of the (L)GPL?

Digmedia [digmedia.org] has some info about this. Follow the link!

Re: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728293)

oh, wmf, your ip is showing.

Re:"Run afoul?" (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 7 years ago | (#19728339)

Well, for one, section 4 of the LGPL 2.1 requires Apple to release the source code for the LGPL code in the iPhone. Such as what's used in Webkit for the iPhone.

Mentioning WebKit in the summary is also quite the ballsy move, since Apple's WebKit contributions to KHTML are among the biggest known returns to "free" software by a proprietary Fortune 500 company.

That's funny, because Webkit appears to be a fork of KHTML, not "contributing" to it. Contributing to the KHTML project wouldn't require a new project to be formed.

Re:"Run afoul?" (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | about 7 years ago | (#19728373)

Only if what's used is different from what Apple has already released, and only if the relevant portions of Webkit are, in fact, LGPL'd. From what I recall, that "KHTML fork" called Webkit includes some material outside the LGPL. Even if there's source code yet to be released, they've not necessarily "run afoul" of anything yet.

That's funny, because Webkit appears to be a fork of KHTML, not "contributing" to it.
Fork or not, they've contributed a great deal. Just ask the KHTML folks.

Re:"Run afoul?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728413)

Actually, I recall much controversy being made about apple's fork because they made it almost impossible to use most of it in the original KHTML. Link me to somewhere where the actual developers talk about how wonderful Apple's contributions are, please. I doubt it, but then again a lot could have happened in the last year or so.

Re:"Run afoul?" (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | about 7 years ago | (#19728473)

I normally hate using Wikipedia as a source, but it's concise and referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML [wikipedia.org]

It isnt about GPLv3 violation. (2, Insightful)

DrYak (748999) | about 7 years ago | (#19728453)

TFA isn't complaining that Apple is violating the GPLv3. That would be impossible, the GPLv3 was released only a couple of hours before and GPLv3-licensed code has yet to be produced and used by manufacturer.

TFA only illustrate that, by using DRM and Trusted Computing, Apple has taken away the freedom to tinker that the GPL was supposed to bring for peace of code like WebKit and such. The user can recompile it, but can't upload the firmware back, because it isn't signed and the trusted computing module will refuse it. It's once again Tivoization and restricting end users' freedom.

TFA only ask an open question, about what will be the future impact of GPLv3 on manufacturers.

Re:It isnt about GPLv3 violation. (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | about 7 years ago | (#19728459)

It's not TFA where the problem lies. It's the Slashdot article summary.

GPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728139)

If they're using BSD and LGPL licenses, how are they in violation of the GPL license?

Grandstanding. (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 7 years ago | (#19728149)

Apple's work on the Mach kernel for ARM isn't under the GPL, it's under the BSD license. The graphics libraries are their own, and KHTML is available under it's own license. The FSF is trying to pull a Greenpeace-style publicity-grab here.

-jcr

Re:Grandstanding. (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 7 years ago | (#19728217)

The FSF is trying to pull a Greenpeace-style publicity-grab here.

Bullshit.

Just because there's an article about the FSF & Apple, doesn't mean its endorsed by Apple or the FSF.

The only quote in the article from the FSF is a (rather general) statement about the iPhone being proprietary & DRM laden. Nothing about licensing at all.

Re:Grandstanding. (0)

jkrise (535370) | about 7 years ago | (#19728579)

Apple's work on the Mach kernel for ARM isn't under the GPL, it's under the BSD license. The graphics libraries are their own, and KHTML is available under it's own license. The FSF is trying to pull a Greenpeace-style publicity-grab here.

Are you saying there's absoloutely no GPL code... not even GPL2 only code... or even code derived from GPL2 work in the iPhone? That's a very strange view to hold... many seem to agree the 'webkit' was derived from GPL2 or later code.

I think the FSF grabbing publicity is well in order... if Apple goes agains the spirit of the GPL like TiVO, then let the whole world know the facts.

FUD? (1)

someone300 (891284) | about 7 years ago | (#19728157)

I can't see what in the iPhone can be potentially violating the GPL. I thought they released WebKit changes back to the community and as it's LGPL they don't need to release Safari's entire codebase. Despite GPLv3 being released just before this device was released doesn't mean that all the "GPLv2" or "GPLv2 or higher" software was magically turned into "GPLv3 only" software, so they're not required to make it modifiable. Instead, I believe the distributor can decide what license he wants to distribute the software under.

Unfortunate though. I'd love there to be a problem. If they had to release modification docs then it'd be a hacker's dream.

Re:FUD? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 7 years ago | (#19728297)

I can't see what in the iPhone can be potentially violating the GPL. I thought they released WebKit changes back to the community and as it's LGPL they don't need to release Safari's entire codebase.

No, but they do need to release the "machine-readable source code" of the version of Webkit used on the iPhone, as per LGPL 2.1 [gnu.org] Section 4.

GPL3? (1)

Warbothong (905464) | about 7 years ago | (#19728161)

The Tivo 'saber' is only covered in the GPL3. The iPhone came out on the same day as GPL3, so I seriously doubt there is GPL3-only code in there. The GPL2 doesn't deal with Tivoisation at all, which is why v3 was made. If it turns out there is GPL code in the iPhone Apple just need to distribute some publicly available source, they won't have to change the iPhone in any way.

Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 7 years ago | (#19728163)

Why stop with GPL software? If you suspect, without giving any reason, that Apple might have stolen GPL'd software and is using it in the iPhone without license, then you should suspect that they might have stolen software from anyone else as well. Not that there is any reason for any such suspicion except paranoia, but you can be paranoid as much as you like.

Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing? (0)

Warbothong (905464) | about 7 years ago | (#19728177)

It violates 235 patents don'tcha know

Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing? (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about 7 years ago | (#19728233)

As part of deal with Gates and company buying 25% of Apple in non-voting shares a few years back, Apple has use of the MS patent library as part of the deal. Technically MS owns the patent to the jogging dial thingy on the iPod too, but since the terms of the deal...

Re:Apple running afoul of Microsoft licensing? (4, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | about 7 years ago | (#19728285)

You are mistaking patents for copyright and vice versa.

As far as the iPhone software is concerned this is all a storm in a teacup. The real storm will start later.

If the postings so far on various security boards are correct it looks like it indeed runs something OSX like enough and runs everything even the web browser as ROOT. Now if that is not a hacker dream dunno what is. Every exploit no matter how small will provide the attacker with full access to the system including ability to break out of the ghastly contract obligations to ATT and Apple. While the lack of fine grained privilege system is a general problem for all smartphones, in the apple's case it is made worse by the platform being "bigger" and everything having direct access to the iron.

It is too early to say if the iPhone will be the first phone where the admin vs user and privilege control issue will be finally forced, but there is a considerable likelihood of this happening. Once this happens, it will also inevitably open up as a platform (and we will soon know exactly how much (X)GPL code it contains).

Jog dial? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#19728321)

Really?

I don't own an iPod, but all my very early Qualcomm cell phones WAY back in the day had jog-dials. It made it easy to control and navigate all the menus in your phone with simply your thumb. I never understand why it disappeared.

Re:Jog dial? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 years ago | (#19728541)

For patent lawyers:

The edge of a wheel on the side of a device is not the same thing as a full wheel on the front of a device.

And a phone is not the same thing as a portable music player.

Apples Making Cell Phones? (5, Funny)

GreggBz (777373) | about 7 years ago | (#19728183)

So, I read the story and realize that Apples making cell phones now!?
Cool, I'll have to check this out.

Re:Apples Making Cell Phones? (1, Funny)

edwardpickman (965122) | about 7 years ago | (#19728451)

They also have a new disinformation department called iBull. It's purpose is to leak information about nonexistent products they are developing to drive Bill Gates crazy. The iCar is one such product. It's supposed to marry iPod, iPhone and iMac into one portable take anywhere unit that will run on any fuel source and can be recharged by solar panels. Microsoft is responding with their own car nicknamed "Zoom". Apple spends a couple of grand on some nice CG renders of the iCar, Microsoft spends ten billion developing and marketing their Zoom car, the smile on Steve Jobs face, priceless.

Harmful (3, Insightful)

pubjames (468013) | about 7 years ago | (#19728201)

I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux. OSS advocates scream "FUD" when companies like Microsoft try to scare clients by saying using GPL software opens them up to legal action, but this kind of statement by the FSS shows that they have a point. The FSS needs to choose its battles more wisely if it is not going to harm the people it is supposed to help.

Re:Harmful (4, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 7 years ago | (#19728411)

I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux.

What posturing is the FSF doing? I read the article & the FSF guy parsaid: 'Apple's released a proprietary & DRM-crippled phone - I wonder if it has GPLd software on it?'

The iPhone is both proprietary & crippled by DRM - I don't see where the posturing is.

Re:Harmful (3, Insightful)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about 7 years ago | (#19728445)

Uh, Apple don't use Linux - they use Mach and BSD.

Re:Harmful (2, Interesting)

joe 155 (937621) | about 7 years ago | (#19728463)

I hate to cast aspersions on you and whether or not you might actually be "FUD-ing", but it seems like you might be.

The GPL is extremely permissive (although short of a BSD style, of course), use it if you want - you don't even have to agree to the license for that. Use someone else's software if you want - you're free to do that too. But surely it is nice, and only fair, that if you give away your software to anyone who wants to use it that they tell you what they've done with it and how. The FSF are not saying "OMG!!11! WE'LL SUE APPLE FOR 1 TRILLION DOLLARS!!" they are saying "if there is a license violation, which we are not sure that there is, then they would need to make sure that the software that WE wrote can be accessed by us and we know what has been done with it"

When you put it like that I think they sound a whole lot more reasonable

Re:Harmful (1)

dmayle (200765) | about 7 years ago | (#19728469)

The FSF needs to choose its battles more wisely if it is not going to harm the people it is supposed to help.

That's ridiculous! The very people the FSF are trying to protect are the end users, not the companies who want to profit off of GNU works. All they're saying is, if you want to profit from their code, you have to follow the licenses that come with it. Using GPL software does not open you up to legal action. Creating software using someone else's code does. (Whether it's GPL or not) GPL'ed software just has the benefit of allowing you to build off of it if you decide to open up your code as well.

Re:Harmful (1)

jkrise (535370) | about 7 years ago | (#19728521)

I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux.

Firstly, are you sure the iPhone uses Linux or GPLed components? If so, I would hate the FSF if it didn't stand up for the spirit of the GPL - ie: Freedom to users. Why should the FSF stand idly by, when some (allegedly) unscrupulous corporate makes $500 by denying freedom to it's customers? The market might be able to come up with a $50 device, if the spirit of the GPL were to be enforced... would you consider it harmful then?

OSS advocates scream "FUD" when companies like Microsoft try to scare clients by saying using GPL software opens them up to legal action, but this kind of statement by the FSS shows that they have a point.

Using or distributing GPL software for a profit never gets anyone into trouble, provided said user or distributor respects the GPL. If Microsoft does try to scare clients this way, then they are engaging in FUD - pure and simple.

The FSS needs to choose its battles more wisely if it is not going to harm the people it is supposed to help.

I'd say companies need to choose their software licenses very carefully while developing, selling or distributing them. If indeed Apple uses GPLed code and is in violation, the FSF has chosen it's battles very carefully.

FSF point out flaws in (L)GPL2 (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 7 years ago | (#19728213)

Film at 11.

Yawn.

Change the (i)tune, FSF. Yes, we know that GPL3 is out, and that it's waaaaaaaaay better at infecting proprietary devices than GPL2, and we should all switch to it immediately. It's getting old.

Apple points out flaws in SmartPhone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728317)

Film at 11.

Yawn.

Change the (i)tune, Apple. Yes, we know that the iPhone is out, and that it's waaaaaaaaay better at infecting personal media than the SmartPhone, and we should all switch to it immediately. It's getting old.

So much snark to do and yet so little time...

GPL and LGPL software included and documented (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728215)

In Settings / About, there's a hugenormous list of license stuff, including many BSD, MIT, and one or two GPL or LGPL licenses. I believe the GPL/LGPL stuff is accompanied by an offer to provide the sources for some nominal fee upon request (in line with the GPLv2 as I understand it).

Nice GPLv3 propaganda if you're into the whole "tivoization is ruining the world" thing, but otherwise pretty content free. Also, rather than speculating they could have done some minimal research.

Wow, that surprises me... (2, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | about 7 years ago | (#19728241)

Now maybe there is and maybe there isn't GPL code in the iPhone, but this really stinks like the FSF saying "hey, they're getting a lot of attention, lets see if we can say something bad about them and people will pay attention to us!".

Its a very childish thing to do, and very unlike the FSF in my opinion.

Scooter Libby was in the news this week, too. Maybe they should claim he might have violated the GPL, too. Double helping of bandwagon jumping?

Re:Wow, that surprises me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728295)

No, it is entirely *like* the FSF to pull this kind of stunt. FSF is the kind of organisation that is *always* on the attack, either taking shots at people or whining. I find it really hard to read anything that they have to say these days, especially with their 'propietary' and 'crippled' jingoism.

Show me the FSF quote.. (5, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | about 7 years ago | (#19728247)

.. What? There is none? Talk about reverse FUD tactics.

We know that Apple has built its operating system, OS X, and its web browser Safari, using GPL-covered work - it will be interesting to see to what extent the iPhone uses GPLed software."
Article writer saying "will be interesting to see" != FSF sabre rattling != FSF saying "will be interesting to see"

BSD zealot strikes again?

Re:Show me the FSF quote.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728287)

Check out http://www.fsf.org/iphone-gplv3 [fsf.org]
pretty much says the same thing.

The FSF are coming across as even more a bunch of whiney hippies than usual with this whole GPL3 fiasco.

Re:Show me the FSF quote.. (1)

ContractualObligatio (850987) | about 7 years ago | (#19728415)

Erm .. the quote was in the article, and the summary?

It was even put in quotes to make it easy to spot.

On the sabre rattling front, if the intent was not to do so, that's an awful use of language. "Interesting" has a long standing history as a euphemism. "May you live in interesting times", for example. "When they ran out of sugar for their coffee, they tried using salt instead. I thought that was an interesting decision", perhaps.

More pertinently - "I believe these people are acting in a manner offensive to my beliefs. I would be very interested in having evidence that might support my case."

Given the FSF have worked to develop a new version of the GPL to attack use of free software within proprietary, sealed devices; given that the iPhone is such a device; given that the FSF have just made rather negative comments about the iPhone; given that Peter Brown's "interesting" choice of language is in the same veiled-threat-in-an-apparent-complement sense as "nice place, shame if something happened to it", etc...

Given all that, why would you say this is BSD zealotry FUD, other than your own bias?

To put it another way... (3, Insightful)

itsdapead (734413) | about 7 years ago | (#19728269)

If and when KHTML moves to (L)GPLv3, Apple will just have to start a GPLv2 fork of it.

So, any future contributions by Apple will go to the GPLv2 fork... and if Apple deletes any "...or later..." clause from "their" fork, the GPLv3 version won't even be able to cross-port their changes.

Yes, a proud day for the GPLv3.

Re:To put it another way... (1, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | about 7 years ago | (#19728323)

Or they could just, you know, comply with the license.

Re:To put it another way... (1)

someone1234 (830754) | about 7 years ago | (#19728325)

How are they able to cross port those changes without Apple submitting them back in the first place?

Don't even suggest it! (2, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#19728337)

Apple would never consider forking KHTML!

Re:To put it another way... (4, Insightful)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | about 7 years ago | (#19728383)

Apple already have their own KHTML fork, it's called Webkit. The two pieces of code have separated quite a way now, although there appear to have been attempts recently from both sides to pull them a little closer together again. Apple is more than capable of keeping webkit going on their own.

Re:To put it another way... (1)

dmayle (200765) | about 7 years ago | (#19728423)

Wow... look at all of the Apple apologists coming out of the woodwork.

Look, I use a Macs at home, and wouldn't want to give them up (and would love to have an iPhone) but this story has already gotten ridiculous. To counter the parent as to KHTML moving to (L)GPL3: Sure, if Apple decided to fork it, they could, though they immediately lose a good portion of the benefits of open source if the rest of the developers are working on a v3 version. They have to perform all the quality control and development. And if there are "or later" clauses on the code, Apple does not have the right to remove them from the work (though new code they write doesn't have to have the "or later" clause on it.)

The FSF has a valid point here, and I don't care how much you get off with your Apple products. If they're using GPL, they have to comply with the license, and if they are going to use GPLv3 when it becomes the only license for GNU code, they'll have to open up the iPhone for development if they want to continue using it.

Re:To put it another way... (1)

jkrise (535370) | about 7 years ago | (#19728533)

future contributions by Apple will go to the GPLv2 fork... and if Apple deletes any "...or later..." clause from "their" fork, the GPLv3 version won't even be able to cross-port their changes.

The biggest asset for any company is mindshare from it's customers, not marketshare. Apple is just entering the market for cellphones. If enough negative mindshare is built up around the crippling nature of the product, marketshare would be very sluggish in it's growth.

Secondly, if Apple does fork GPLed components and sticks with Tivoisation, customers would tend to view Apple very negatively. Which is bound to hurt them over the long run.

It looks to me like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728283)

In its zeal to destroy proprietary vendors, FSF has become as bad as one.

Re:It looks to me like... (1)

iamwahoo2 (594922) | about 7 years ago | (#19728583)

How is that?

Did you actually read the article?

Enough is Enough (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728333)

Mr Jobs, tear down this wall !!!

The future is here (3, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | about 7 years ago | (#19728455)

Gnu/Apple

In a related story... (1)

jpellino (202698) | about 7 years ago | (#19728457)

Apple quakes in boots.

Just wanted to keep the pirate mood going.

Pro-FOSS is one thing. Anti-every-other-model is another.

stupidists (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#19728505)

The FSF yet again proves it is an organisation driven by anarchists, communists and general stupidists. These ideaology powered geeks out to change the world need to take a cold shower.

Well (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#19728577)

Not the first time I'll say that (and I totally mean it):

FFS, FSF. WTF?

Nonsense (3, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | about 7 years ago | (#19728581)

From the article: crippled, because a device that isn't under the control of its owner works against the interests of its owner.

That has nothing to do with the device running on open source software and everything to do with the user-friendliness of the software. Many of the open source advocates take it way too far in my opinion. Open source can be a great development model but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is wether the software does its job properly or not.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>