“This guest whitepaper explains how a hypervisor can be used to leverage GPL software while isolating it from proprietary code, in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of the GPL. It was written by a TRANGO Virtual Processors product manager, and uses that company’s hypervisor as an example.”
Linux is still licensed GPLv2 and none of the currently GPLv3 licensed software is used on tivo like devices.
Exactly, and is not like GPLv3 is showing a great success eather.
Problem for FSF is, GPLv2 still works great for the needs of the majority of software houses…There simply isn’t any practical reason to pick GPLv3 over GPLv2.
Most people who keeps their code under GPLv2 doesn’t really care who uses their code as long as they’re given back the “tit for tat”
I always found funny about Linux and its “free” GPL2 license, in how many ways people try to avoid its rules to have freedom of choise, userland fusefs for example.
The FUSE system wasn’t created to avoid licensing issues. It was created to allow easy development of portable and complex filesystems in userspace.
You’re right to notice that it allows to work around licensing limitations though (f.e. ZFS on FUSE).
I know this is off topic but with FUSE, is it possible to use a file system that uses fuse, to run an operating system off it? the reason I ask is it would be a great way to modular-a-lise Linux kernel.
Yes, it is possible to boot using FUSE by adding the fuse kernel module and userspace daemon to your initial ramdisk image.
F.e.: There is a Knoppix derivative that uses httpfs to mount the root filesystem (an ISO image). If I remember correctly, it’s called VMKnoppix.
You can see that GPLv3 is very successful, because the fear is visible : white papers, trolls bashing GPLv3 saying it’s not successful.
Good!
Of course, this white paper obiously is not more a method “to ensure compliance with the requirements of the GPL”, than a tedious way to go against the spirit of the GPL.
You measure “success” by your perceived amount of “fear” and the number of people who don’t like it?
No, but I think you can’t understand, as you manage to put things out of context here.
“success” is not measured by perceived amount of “fear” and the number of people that don’t like sth, that should be obvious to you. I’m still wondering how you came to such a conclusion.
No, but I think you can’t understand, as you manage to put things out of context here.
“success” is not measured by perceived amount of “fear” and the number of people that don’t like sth, that should be obvious to you. I’m still wondering how you came to such a conclusion.
It was probably the part where you said
You can see that GPLv3 is very successful, because the
fear is visible
that made him come to that conclusion
These are interesting times. Capitalists have latched on to GPL software as a convenient tool for doing what they do best. I think that the coming confrontations between them and the (small? or large?) number of anti-capitalists who have traditionally been invested in the GPL will be entertaining to watch. My bet is on the guys with the money.
The (hard to get to) core idea of the article is that if you have proprietary code that must be “trusted” (as in TCPA & DRM), cou can put it in a VM instead of in the OS (as long as the OS itself is in a VM, at the same level as the proprietary code).
You would then talk to that “secure” component as if it was a server on another machine. While keeping exercising your freedom on the non-encumbered VM. Sounds like a lesser evil for tivo owners.
It’s probably not usable for DRM schemes though, since you’ll need to send the content to the free (non-trusted) OS at some stage.
To counter this, you can put more and more functionality into the proprietary part, but you slowly lose the advantage of beeing able to “leech” on free software. Sounds fair to me (not that I would buy such a system !). Well done, GPLv3
…here
The problem with Tivo was that modified GPL’ed software couldn’t run on their devices. With this hypervisor-solution the problem is solved. One can still run modified GPL’ed software and playback of the DRM’ed* media can still be restricted.
Compatible with Tivo and compatible with GPL v3. A nice solution actually.
*DRM – Digital Restriction Management. A technology invented to remove the customer’s fundamental rights.
This is a good thing. It shows that, regardless of the motives, a license cannot limit anyone willing to write the code to get what they want. If you make the hardware, you can still control that hardware, if you write enough of the code yourself. Just remember that, in the end, someone has to be willing to buy it.
People want Tivos.
People want general purpose computers.
People want iPhones (not posted from my iPhone)
It really isn’t anyone’s place to tell people what kind of computer they can and can’t have.