OSNews

You say that right - it is about ideals. Following the letter is thus rarely enough, it's about the spirit. The kindle might comply by publishing the sourcecode, they still don't actively contribute their changes (bad for both them and linux, I guess they just don't *get it* yet) and the device is build around DRM, locking users in. The latter is of course very much against the spirit of FOSS, or at least the spirit as the FSF developed, spread and defends it.

disclaimer: I'm not saying I agree with the FSF, just that can understand why they reacted like this knowing their opinions and goals.

Those stories were crap; going back to http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/kindle-swindle-source-code their argument is that because amazon prevents you from loading modified code on the kindle releasing the source is essentially useless to kindle users.

You can take their modified 2.6.22 kernel source, make some changes, recompile it, and oh... you can't load it on the kindle...

so amazon is following the letter of the law, but it doesn't really benefit anyone, least of all kindle users.

Then again, FSF completely disregards the fact that Amazon sells a SERVICE, Kindle is an utility to run that service and therefore it's required to be closed to a point to ensure the hardware is used for THAT Service. By opening up the hardware for everyone they'd make themselves vulnerable for competition to use the hardware for the competitions service.

Dunno how to explain this any simplier.

Linux and OSS still benefit, albeit I also dislike having DRM on a Kindle, even though I own one (I would love to be able to run other software on the Kindle, though a port to effectively use the display would not be easy for most apps).

The reason they benefit is that they are paying linux engineers, not windows engineers (or some other close source embedded OS). A good linux software engineer is going to be far more useful than quite a few users, even if he only has a small amount of interaction with the open/online communities. It also increases the chance that company will keep using linux, and that the developer will keep seeking linux jobs in the future (and there will be more and more of these).

Also, the kindle is a pretty unique device. Not perfect, by any means; i'd love to have a detachable keyboard or just have it as an ultra slim notebook instead of what it is. But the point is, if the technology behind the kindle display takes off, even if the UI code is never released, we still have the device drivers (unless they pulled an NVIDIA), and we will still have people familiar with programming these sorts of devices on Linux.

It would also be nice if they put a sticker or engraving "Linux inside" or some such on it, but that rarely happens, even with the relatively more open Android based G1.

So even if you are fully compliant with the terms of the GPL and release the source code to all modified software, you will still be demonized by the FSF. This reminds me of the situation where Canonical was called out for not providing enough kernel patches even though Ubuntu is fully compliant and probably single-handedly responsible for more desktop Linux installs than all other distributions combined.

I think the ideals of Free Software are noble, even if a bit impractical given the structure of our current economic systems, but I often find the methods of the FSF and its most ardent supporters to be distasteful, discouraging, and, much of the time, counterproductive. "

Absolutely agree.

From the blog:

"It's good that Amazon is complying with the licenses and not behaving illegally, but this is hardly something praiseworthy," John Sullivan operations manager at the FSF blogged. "Amazon benefited from the freedoms passed on to them by other free software authors, and that benefit comes with an obligation to convey that same freedom to their users -- to share alike."

FSF, please get bent. If you don't like how someone uses the license, then rewrite it.

> FSF, please get bent. If you don't like how someone uses the license, then rewrite it.

Actually they did rewrite the license. The GPLv3 prevents TIVOization. But the linux kernel uses GPLv2.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/node/2392

Greg KH is from Novell ... But then reading that real link with the truth , one can see that the Linux foundation don't seem too happy with Amazon either ...

Coward , thief , liar and traitor who dislike Free Software , the GPL , FSF and GNU/Linux will always be unhappy and insulting and demonizing with anything any of those do , say and achieve. Just mean it's stil doing it's job.

That links only shows that amanda who writes on that blog seems to thing that they should give more back. Does she talk for linux foundation?



And your post was actually for once worth a read but then you had your insults. You don't have to either a Cowardm thief liar or traitor to dislike gpl, fsf or linux or the whole gnu/freesoftware thing.

Sorry hamster , but in 2009 , I pass on replying to your usual lies that have no basis on reality.

What's with Greenpeace here? Excuse me, sir, but the world you trundle in your SUV is significantly less awful because they have fought to put evidence in front of the faces of people like you, and also like others who have had the intelligence to recognize it.

And you know? They are just defending their opinions; they don't even have to be right all the time; even if (when) they are not, it is good that that they fuel the debate.

Sorry, pal, but it seems to me that the world is very, very, very far from perfection just yet. I'm sorry if your enshrined iPhone is made with toxic products. Even if its Designed By Apple In California, it can be improved upon, and made onto a case that you CAN be clean AND successful.

You cannot dump nuclear waste in the ocean any more; but you can go on drinking the Big Corp coolaid and waste petrol, promote capital punishment, saw off the rain forests and ruin the future of ruined countries with genetically engineered patented crops. And never, ever, question anything, because any opinions that things have to be changed are attacks on your lifestyle.

Thankfully, some less petty do listen, at times.

How on earth do you extrapolate all of that crap from the one line the guy said, "It is a business after all"? And why the hell did you get modded up +7 for your trolling?

I don't find his response weird at all. First of all, the parent is the one who dragged Greenpeace in this, and the response by lobotomik was imho justified.

Besides, he's also right. Greenpeace might not be always right (personally I loath most of what they do) but they do have an overall positive influence of the world. In part BECAUSE they are extreme.

Same goes for the FSF. You don't change anything if you're not extreme. You think Stallman would have even changed 1% of what he made possible today if he was not so extreme?

Again, I personally find them extreme and I don't like extreme - but that does not mean I don't respect them for what they have accomplished. And I wouldn't be surprised if one day Amazon will give in and the Kindle will be DRM-free. The world will be better for it.

Reminds me of the fiasco with Apple and Webkit - the complaints by FSF advocates that because the code wasn't wrapped up with a nice bow - that it makes Apple worse than Stalin. We see the same sort of logic used here by the FSF advocates yet again; Amazon do as required - and still complain. If FSF advocates want individuals who use GPL code to provide greater contributions back by way of helping in the said community - maybe they should add a new clause to their licence.

Edited 2009-06-18 17:55 UTC

Don't forget Jesus. You can never be as perfect as Him.

Are you kidding? Tivo was hammered pretty hard (and still is) for violating the spirit of GPL.

GPL was designed to allow *users* to have full control over the software running on their device. Admittedly, like anything, the GPL wasn't perfect. It has loopholes, some of which were plugged in GPLv3.

FSF has always been clear what they stand for, and what the intention of GPL is.

Even if you meet the legal requirements, violating the spirit, or moral requirements is still going to get you some criticism. Any informed individual or corporation, should expect this.

And this is why I have never been a big fan of the GPL. Its original purpose was perhaps noble, but it has mutated into a political tool used by its cultish upholders to browbeat any "big" developer into a very narrow path. GPL fans claim it is the most free license, but it is actually very restrictive if you are anything more than a basement dwelling hobbyist developer. I don't agree with Ballmer and others who claim it is communism; that was pure stupidity on their parts. But, it is certainly not freedom in any real sense of the word. At best, it's a ball and chain for any serious developer.

I don't understand why more companies don't use BSD or MIT licensed software. Not only is the license more palatable for everyone, the code is generally better quality too, at least in my limited personal experience.

(And yes, I realize I'm probably going to be flamed and called a troll by the GPL faithful, but despite that I do look forward to honest discussion of this issue.)

And this is why I have never been a big fan of the GPL. Its original purpose was perhaps noble, but it has mutated into a political tool used by its cultish upholders to browbeat any "big" developer into a very narrow path. GPL fans claim it is the most free license, but it is actually very restrictive if you are anything more than a basement dwelling hobbyist developer. I don't agree with Ballmer and others who claim it is communism; that was pure stupidity on their parts. But, it is certainly not freedom in any real sense of the word. At best, it's a ball and chain for any serious developer.

I don't understand why more companies don't use BSD or MIT licensed software. Not only is the license more palatable for everyone, the code is generally better quality too, at least in my limited personal experience.

(And yes, I realize I'm probably going to be flamed and called a troll by the GPL faithful, but despite that I do look forward to honest discussion of this issue.) "

I really dislike how BSD people like you try to make the GPL to look inferior.

If you really have so much against the GPL stop using our GCC or anything that comes from the GNU project in your BSD systems, and GTFO.

Edited 2009-06-18 10:20 UTC

I really dislike how BSD people like you try to make the GPL to look inferior.

I'm a Linux user and even I dislike GPL and prefer BSD license more.

Unless you've been living under a giant rock - LLVM/Clang is being setup for the replacement of GCC in *BSD's. I'd say that by the time 3.0 is released, BSDs will be top to bottom using 100% BSD code for their system code along with a BSD/MIT compiler.

... but GPL IS inferior. GPL should be banned from the planet Earth. Its original purpose is quite ruined by fanatical followings of its promoters. I think we need new kind of licence - AGPL - you can use my code with anything but GPL together. Now how do you like my freedom? Am I free enough? :-)

Idiots like you should be banned from the planet earth.

I am quite satisfied, when I can provoke someone to call me an idiot, because quite frankly, your response is just mirror of yourself. GPL sucks no matter what - just accept it, your life will be easier :-) It is not about the licence itself, it is about the attitude surrounding it. FSF intentions might look noble, but those are just like melones - green on the surface, red inside. Next time please, save your nitty response, especially if you can't filter out a bit of an irony :-) Thank you.

I'm not a "BSD Person", I currently use OS X, BeOS, Linux, and Windows at home. From a user standpoint, I use what works based on what I'm trying to accomplish. As a beginning developer, I don't care for the "down with the developers" attitude I get from the community behind the GPL. I certainly don't see the GPL itself as inferior; it serves a purpose just as any license does. It simply makes no sense from a developer's standpoint to use it for anything more than hobby or fun apps.



I have nothing against the GPL itself, as I previously stated; rather I have issues with those who use it for retarded political agendas that really have nothing to do with software development. Oh, and it's not "your" GCC; that statement in itself speaks volumes of just how little you understand development and the GPL itself. They aren't "my" BSD systems either.

And ordering me to "GTFO" of a forum you don't control? Wow. Maybe you should check with Thom or David before taking it upon yourself to ban me from here.

Well, you think freedom has to be given freely, including the freedom to not return the favor. The FSF thinks freedom has to be forced and fought for. The rules of Real Life dictate the truth is in the middle, and both extremes have a right to exist. You shouldn't get flamed for having your opinion nor for stating it - I would however understand flaming responses because you, like the FSF, think you are Right(TM) and they are Wrong(TM).

Which is stupid enough to warrant some fire now and then.

It's not that I think they are wrong, I just think their focus has shifted far from the realm of practicality. There was a time when it made sense for a developer to use the GPL; nowadays it is but a rusty sword in the hands of radicals.

That said, Linux wouldn't be what it is today without the GPL, so I don't want it to go away. I just wish some folks treated it more like a license and less like a god.

I'm not sure I agree on your sentiment that the GPL has had its place in history and is not needed anymore. I meet way too many people who still don't get it (even many involved in FOSS!) and I think the GPL enforcing freedom still has a pivotal role to play.

However, I do agree that treating it like some holy grail is counterproductive (not to say silly).

It's not free for developers to use, that's the whole point! It's supposed to be free for end users to use regardless of how much the developer tries to prevent them. GPL is about user rights.

As mentioned previously, if you don't like GPL, don't use any software licensed under it, and *certainly* don't use any source code licensed under it... because then you must abide by it yourself - per the original developers' wishes.

I always find it interesting that people act like the developers who license *their* code under GPL somehow owe it to all other developers to change the license because they can't do something different with it.

And before you start calling me a zealot, or "GPL Faithful", please realize I'm only trying to educate here for those who are misinformed. My favorite FOSS project uses BSD/MIT and I'm just fine with that

Here's the thing; using software written under the GPL is worlds apart from using source code licensed under it. As a user, I'll use whatever does the job; the GPL means nothing to me in that context. Source code is another matter and that's where I'm wary of being trapped in something nearly as bad as an NDA.

The way I see it, it's my code and I'll do whatever the hell I want to with it. If someone wants to use my code, by all means do so, just make sure I get credit where it's due. I don't care if you hack the hell out of it to make it fit your project, and if you don't want to pass along those changes, well that's your prerogative.

That is why I prefer BSD/MIT for my own code.

The freedom that the FSF is fighting for is freedom for the user. The kindle doesn't allow to run modified software on it, so it restricts user's freedom. It protects the development of free software, because any developer's contribution cannot be made irrelevant through locking it in such manner. I think it is a good idea in the current shark-like environment we all live in.

Which is why neither the kernel nor any of the key tools used in various highly embedded systems will EVER go Version 3. If they did, they did Linux would die in the "true" embedded market and possibly in the semi-embedded (PDAs, smartphones, high end routers and other recognizable but small computers) too. Device makers LIKE being able to control what OS image is running their devices and in the case of things like Tivo, they may even be required to do so due to the various patent licenses that are doubtlessly involved that could get broken if alternate firmware were to be run.

No. The reason is that Linus doesn't want to move it to Version 3. Plus the license is GPL V2. Not "or any later version" just GPL2. They don't really have any choice, short of getting permission from every one who has ever contributed to the kernel from agreeing.

Plus, If you install firmware that violates a patent. You are legally responsible for that. Not the company that built the hardware.

Yep. Then again, extremism leads to change, realism does not. It is the extreme position of the FSF (and Stallman in the beginning) which led to the existence of Free Software. It is pragmatism which makes it flourish. Both are needed.

From what I can gather, Amazon did as the GPL said to do, and it wasn't good enough. Where do we draw the line? Must Amazon now open-source their hardware too? Give up their DRM so they lose contracts with the vast majority of their content providers, thus driving them out of the e-book business altogether?

Bottom line, they did the right thing and were still persecuted for it. Sounds a hell of a lot like religion to me.

I'm so sick of this zealous cult worship bullshit.

Amazon is complying to GPL as in the law written on paper, just not to the spirit of the GPL as intrepeded by FSF

Amazon is a business, and as such complies with law and written licenses.....not "spirits".

Being a capitalist, I don't blame them at all.

But they did comply, they released the source. It's just useless source.

They are complying with the license. What they're not complying with are the unwritten expectations of the community and the problem with unwritten things are that they are just that, unwritten. There is nothing legally wrong with what Amazon has done and they have no legal obligation to do anything more.
This is exactly where FSF and the community comes in, by pressuring Amazon to do the "right thing", even when it's not something Amazon has to do. They don't have to sit and pretend they're happy with the situation.