How Nokia and Linux Can Live Together

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.

Hmm

[mccalli (323026)]

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

DRM and Freedom don't mix.

[Odder (1288958)]

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.

The Bright Line

[camperdave (969942)]

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

Re:The Bright Line

[mrsteveman1 (1010381)]

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:

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

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.

Re:The Bright Line

[deathy_epl+ccs (896747)]

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

Re:The Bright Line

[NDPTAL85 (260093)]

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:

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

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

Nokia makes and sells hundreds of millions

[Colin Smith (2679)]

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:The Bright Line

[Bruce Perens (3872)]

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

[mrsteveman1 (1010381)]

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:

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

If Nokia builds interfaces and media applications in userspace using their own code the GPLv3 has nothing to do with it.

I was making an assumption, but answer me this -- if they are playing by the rules, why did they say that they "aren't ready to"?

It sounded very much like they were wanting the community to work with them to develop DRM.

Simply having the largest handset manufacturer in the world using Linux gives the platform legitimacy it otherwise DOES NOT HAVE.

Huh?

Linux has had a large chunk of the server market for a very long time. It's used in all kinds of embedded devices other than Nokia. And it makes a decent desktop OS.

Linux already has legitimacy. About all Nokia is at this point is another checkbox, so we can say "Oh yeah, IBM uses it,

Re:

[mrsteveman1 (1010381)]

"Huh?

Linux has had a large chunk of the server market for a very long time. It's used in all kinds of embedded devices other than Nokia. And it makes a decent desktop OS."

My point is, Linux is just now breaking into this market, there are some niche devices using it, motorola does and some other Nokia phones do, but up to this point it has been a minority compared to symbian, WinCE, and now the ARM branch of OS X. Having the largest phone manufacturer in the world pushing Linux hard (hell they OWN TrollTech

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

Satellite has to be encrypted because they broadcast everything all the time, over an entire country. If they don't encrypt it, people can receive it without paying, its a compromise.

That's a reason why they do it, not why they have to. It's heavily ad-supported already -- seriously, they've got commercial breaks every five minutes, and every ten minutes or so, there's a small chunk of actual TV in which 25% of the screen is not taken up by an animated ad -- with audio!

I haven't looked at the economics of it, but it really does seem like satellite could operate on pretty much the same principles as over-the-air TV.

I value having the source for certain things simply because i can make use of it elsewhere, and i can see what its doing. I'm not as concerned about modifying software in place, though i realize other people value this greatly.

I value both quite a lot.

I value being able to understand what's going

Re:The Bright Line

[Bruce Perens (3872)]

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:

[bytesex (112972)]

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

Re:The Bright Line

[HiThere (15173)]

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

[Bruce Perens (3872)]

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

[Bruce Perens (3872)]

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

Re:The Bright Line

[Bruce Perens (3872)]

That's fair.

I think that Nokia has missed some obvious things that would have helped them build the Maemo community, too. Like, where's the distribution? Downloading applications from all of those different repositories and crossing your fingers that they will work is sub-optimal, they could have put more effort into integration and would have community cooperation on that.

Re:

[PastaLover (704500)]

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.

The upside about having linux run on these cellphones is that porting existing applications and writing new ones for this platform will become easier. For many people it will not matter if the phone itself is locked down, rather it only matters that they will be able to write their own applications or modify existing ones and deploy with minimum hassle. If Nokia is against that, well then they're barking up the wrong tree and their relation with the open source community will necessarily be a cold and dis

Re:The Bright Line

[luca (6883)]

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

[hairyfeet (841228)]

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

[Save_Clippy (1254358)]

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

What's IMHO the problem here...

[Enleth (947766)]

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:

[serviscope_minor (664417)]

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:

[Enleth (947766)]

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.

He's right.. this is the future

[Cheesey (70139)]

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

[mrsteveman1 (1010381)]

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:

[mrsteveman1 (1010381)]

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 IMPRO

Re:

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

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

[MtHuurne (602934)]

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

[fahrbot-bot (874524)]

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. :-)

linux users' translation

[v1 (525388)]

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...

Don't try to keep your business model alive...

[A beautiful mind (821714)]

...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...

[clang_jangle (975789)]

(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:

[IamTheRealMike (537420)]

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.

Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine

[Bruce Perens (3872)]

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:

[Billly Gates (198444)]

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:

[mrsteveman1 (1010381)]

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.

Re:

[redxxx (1194349)]

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

[grumling (94709)]

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

[jmorris42 (1458)]

> 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:

[IBBoard (1128019)]

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:

[mrsteveman1 (1010381)]

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

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

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

Re:

[Hatta (162192)]

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

Re:

[mrsteveman1 (1010381)]

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?

[Bruce Perens (3872)]

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

Re:What is a derivative work?

[Bruce Perens (3872)]

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