Will the iPhone violate GPL 3?
You have to feel a little sorry for the Free Software Foundation, which launched the first overhaul of its General Public License (GPL) in 16 years on the same day that Apple's iPhone launch hogged the spotlight.
Future GPL 3 violator?
(Credit: Apple)But the foundation, like everybody and his brother, couldn't resist looking for a piece of the iPhone action. It used the launch as an opportunity to preach the merits of its new license and raise the specter that Apple's iPhone will violate it.
"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," said Peter Brown, executive director of the foundation, in a statement on Thursday.
That sounded a little vague, so I asked the foundation for some follow-up. Joshua Gay said he doesn't know what software is in the iPhone, but said, "If it's true that Apple can upgrade the software on the phone, but users can't, then distributing GPL 3 software on the iPhone would be a violation of the license."
Even if the iPhone uses GPL software, it's not clear whether Apple will employ GPL 3 versions of it at some point. What is clear is the foundation's loathing for what the iPhone represents.
Free software--that which grants anyone the freedom to see, modify and redistribute its underlying source code--is "radically reshaping the industry and threatening the proprietary technology model represented by the iPhone," the foundation said. On Friday, "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."
Specifically, the foundation decries what it calls "TiVo-ization"--the incorporation of GPL software into a device, such as a TiVo's personal video recorder, that stops working if its software is modified.
The GPL 3 attempts to block such behavior, though Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project, objects to it vehemently as overreaching.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank.
FreeBSD, which is under a BSD license, not the GPL. And Safari is
based on KHTML, which is under the LGPL, not the GPL. There
may in fact be GPL software on the iPhone, but the examples
Brown gave are not it.
become the exclusive license for any existing software, even that
covered by GPLv2. It's certainly true that people who receive
software under the standard GPLv2 are free to redistribute it
under GPLv3 (because of the "or any future version" language,
though I believe Linus deleted that part from the Linux license),
but that doesn't make GPLv3 apply automatically to all such
redistributions, since you're still free to distribute it under the
existing license.
What's more, Apple, like everyone else, is free to license
software from its developers under whatever terms they care to
negotiate. This remains the case *even if* a piece of software is
normally distributed under GPL, and indeed there are already
software packages distributed using a GPL-for-free, other-
license-if-you-pay type model.
RMS, of course, doesn't like this, but that's because it doesn't
match RMS's political objectives, not all of which are necessarily
views representative of the developer community as a whole (not
even the Open Source part of it, actually).
going to feel obligated to jump through GPL3 hoops. They risk
losing credibility if they say you can't deny people how to use
software, so they're going to deny Apple the right to use it
according to the license they signed.
Hypocrites.
They have to follow whatever license is attached, period.
- Uninformed comments - OSX is
-
by elvey
July 30, 2007 12:50 PM PDT
- OSX itself contains lots of GPL'd code, not just LGPL'd code or BSD code. It even comes with a copy of the GPL - several copies, in fact - paper and soft copies.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(6 Comments)I don't think that spying on users is about socialism. Here's a definition of socialism; I don't see anything relevant to the GPL 'till the mention of freedom in the last sentence. You're saying freedom is a BAD thing?
Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and movements which aim to improve society through collective and egalitarian action; and to a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct?exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils?or indirect?exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or worker ownership of the means of production.
The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the 19th century. The Industrial Revolution had brought many economic and social changes. Factory owners became very wealthy, while long hours and impoverishment faced the factory workers.[2] Socialists criticized the suffering and injustices resulting from the concentration of property in the hands of the capitalist class.
Socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Some argued that the 1945 post-war socialist governments had abolished capitalism and that socialism was the practice of socialist government,[3] while others have supported nationalising the "commanding heights" of the economy under democratic workers' control.[4]
Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Communists in Yugoslavia in the 1960s and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with market forces, which guide production and exchange in place of central planners.[5]
Anarcho-syndicalists and some elements of the U.S. New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils. Others may advocate different arrangements.
The Socialist International, the affiliate body for most of the world's social democratic parties, such as the Socialist Party of France, describes socialism as "an international movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity"[6]
(above is covered by the LGPL - it's from Wikipedia)