How Nokia and Linux Can Live Together 155
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Bright Line (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Bright Line (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re:The Bright Line (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Bright Line (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. It the product continues to meet the advertised specifications and work like it did when they purchased it, the majority of people think it just works
Nokia makes and sells hundreds of millions (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
With cell phones we have the same situation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
as long as they comply with the license terms of the software they use I don't see a problem.
The GPLv3 forbids a lot of things Nokia wants to do.
it would be bad for the platform if companies stop using it.
It wouldn't matter much for the platform at all if companies continue to use it, but contribute nothing at all. In that case, they may as well not be using it.
Basically, Nokia has three simple options: Either play by the rules, pay me for my efforts, or don't use my code. That's one more option than you get with proprietary software, by the way.
Re:The Bright Line (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Thats the legitimacy im talking about, when random phones are running Linux and no one seems surprised about it, and end users don't even know, because its so widespread.
And the same is true in many other places. BSD is in pretty much every modern network stack. Some flavor of Unix, and most often Linux, is in a majority of webservers -- millions of people use Google every day without thinking about the fact that it runs Linux.
If you mean "legitimacy within the mobile industry", fine, though it would show how myopic that industry is if they haven't seen it coming from the places Linux already owns. But Linux has more than justified its existence.
This isn't a "screw over your users" restriction, this is a "protect our service against theft" issue
You can paint every DRM is
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't the same sort of "we sold you this song but you can't do what you want with it". Granted content owners are pushing much further than "you paid for service so we let you use the content", i realize they are dictating terms of use, but at the basic level satellite
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, stuff like satellite television HAS to be encrypted
Why?
That isn't the same sort of "we sold you this song but you can't do what you want with it".
That is exactly the effect. We sold you access to this channel, but you can't do what you want with it.
at the basic level satellite HAS to be DRM'd to prevent service theft.
It seems to me that it has pretty much the same amount of effectiveness as any other DRM, though. Which is, "None at all."
Thats why i believe TiVo is being so protective, and why i don't have as much of a problem with what they did. I don't like it, but i understand.
I don't much care what they do -- so long as they write the software. If they use my software, they play by my rules.
You CAN still tinker with the software, you just can't run modified copies of that software on the hardware
Or, in other words, you can't still tinker with the software. You can port it to different hardware, sure, but as it stands, you can't tinker with the software w
Re: (Score:2)
If they quit doing that, this sort of DRM likely wouldn't be necessary, and at that case i agree, the DRM is anti-consumer and completely ridiculous.
We do diverge he
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
The service fees for DirecTV I imagine go mostly toward maintaining the infrastructure needed to broadcast from space, I mean they own their own satellites don't they? That's gotta be expensive
I think the entire thing has become inflated, th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You see, we are talking apples to oranges here. He change the communication streams being sent and listened to what was being received. TO say that gives you a right or some inherent notion of being able to execute code on any hardware, you really have to ignore r
Re: (Score:2)
First, he modified the software on the computer, not the printer. He didn't flash any firmware or anything into the printer.
I see your nitpick and raise you an analogy.
TO say that gives you a right or some inherent notion of being able to execute code on any hardware, you really have to ignore reality.
No, what gives me the right to execute code on any hardware is the fact that I bought that hardware, which makes it mine.
Not even going to respond to the accusations of lying...
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't buy a general purpose computer, you purchased an appliance the does certain things. It you attempt to make it do something else and break it,
Re: (Score:2)
I have not yet found a laptop manufacturer which goes beyond these stickers and rivets the case shut. Even Apple doesn't do shit like that anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about voiding a warranty, it is about a product protecting the content and actions it takes from you doing things that bypass those protections and still working as designed. When you buy an appliance, it is just that, and appliance that does certain things. A Tivo is an appliance. When you change that app
Re:The Bright Line (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks
Bruce
Re: (Score:3)
I realize I
Re:The Bright Line (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: (Score:2)
OTOH, I do consider what Noika's proposing as being more offensive than sending spam.
Re:The Bright Line (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Bright Line (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Bright Line (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Their main interest should be in maximizing profits through sales. And it is, but the problem is that their sales are to carriers rather than users.
I think we clearly have a situation where service/phone bundling is harming the market for phones, harming the utility of the devices, and harming consumers.
When a manufacturer gets up on a stage and explains that they wish for their device to work
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Insufficient Rights (Score:2, Funny)
What's IMHO the problem here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The patent issues are there and by and large, unless you work in an IP company, it isn't the focus of your job, though you may spend a month out of a year working on a patent or figuring out how to work around a patent.
Academicians have differen
Re: (Score:2)
He's right.. this is the future (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I think they did.
The GPL says that if you distribute an executable, you have to make available *ALL* of the source you used to compile that executable. If you you distribute an executable for a Cray supercomputer, you cannot supply DIFFERENT source code sufficient for a similar program that would run on a Commodore64.
Unless I am mistaken, the TiVo executable has a signature added. That signature is, both in intent and in fact, a functional component of that intend
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
in reality the core goal of the GPL is to make sure anyone who IMPROVES GPL software releases that code for use by others, especially for other uses.
Bzzzzt.
--The Foundations of the GPL [gnu.org]
In fact, you are free to improve the software all you want for your own personal use and there are no requirements to distribute the changes you've made.
Re: (Score:2)
2. you can give it to anyone you want as per the GPLs terms.
3. you can modify the source and still use it for whatever you want.
4. you can give away the source you just modified in step 3
Nowhere in that list does it say "modify in place". You can't possibly twist the definitions given there to include "i can do whatever I want with the hardware you sold me simply because you put Linux on it".
The GPL says you can change the
Re: (Score:2)
What you call "twist" is exactly the chain of events that caused RMS to start the GNU project in the first place.
RMS had a printer, the driver for the printer was broken, he wanted to fix THAT PRINTER. [oreilly.com] Not use the driver with some other printer, he wanted the only printer he had to work.
You can't possibly argue that you should be allowed to screw with anything GPL software comes into contact with.
Yeah, I don't need the GPL for that. I am flat out arguing that I have the right to screw with anything I own. FULL STOP.
The GPL just makes it easier for me. Don't want to make it
Re: (Score:2)
"I am flat out arguing that I have the right to screw with anything I own."
Well then, if this is the most important consideration here,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care about RMS printer. I do understand why he started the GNU project, yes, but this is 2008 and there are other considerations.
No, there are no other considerations. If you don't the terms of the GPL, DON"T USE GNU CODE. Simple as that. Why you do think Tivo or anyone else is entitled to violate the terms of the GPL? Because the source code is there? You think that means its in the public domain?
At least now you know your interpretation of the GPL is completely false and you have no reason to repeat that error again.
You can't possibly argue that you should be allowed to easily circumvent service theft protections simply because you like to tinker or because they used GPL software. And you really can't say they should HELP you do so, that's insane.
What part of develop your own code do you fail to understand?
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I pointed out a number of situations where there are more important things to consider, and you ignored them.
"If you don't the terms of the GPL, DON"T USE GNU CODE. Simple as that. Why you do think Tivo or anyone else is entitled to violate the terms of the GPL? Because the source code is there? You think that means its in the public domain?"
I have yet to see any valid claim that TiVo violated the license on the code they use, show me otherwise. You can't, and i
Re: (Score:2)
I have yet to see any valid claim that TiVo violated the license on the code they use, show me otherwise.
That's because I never made that claim. I thought I was clear when I wrote, "under GPL3 and under the intent of earlier GPLv2, Tivo can't do what they did. They found a loophole and exploited it, and that's why GPLv3 closed the loophole." What part of THAT do you fail to understand?
This is why TiVo hasn't been sued, they haven't violated the license IN ANY WAY.
What part of loophole and intent to do you fail to understand?
Now, Linus just said exactly what i said before, and he has a VERY firm understanding of the issues involved.
No, Linus does not. He has a firm grasp of what HIS goals are. Not what the FSF's goals are.
I mean jesus christ, if RMS's own words aren't enough to convince yo
Re: (Score:2)
Goals aren't relevant here, what is relevant is the license, and i do believe Linus understands GPLv2 very well.
"What part of loophole and intent to do you fail to understand?"
You may say that V2 has a loophole in it, but I don't believe that. Read my last paragraph to see why.
I'm also not making shit up, you said "If you don't like the terms of the GPL, DON"T USE GNU CODE. Simple as that." I think you're sp
Re: (Score:2)
Goals aren't relevant here,
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO STARTED WITH THE GOAL TALK.
I'm also not making shit up
WHAT PART OF, under GPL3 and under the intent of earlier GPLv2, Tivo can't do what they did. They found a loophole and exploited it, and that's why GPLv3 closed the loophole." DO YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND?
never said TiVo or anyone else should be allowed to violate the terms of the GPLv2,
YOU MADE A CLAIM AS TO WHAT THE CORE GOAL OF THE GPL WAS. I REFUTED IT YOU REFUSE TO BELIEVE RMS'S OWN WORDS.
I also question the claim that no one foresaw this problem when v2 was written.
"NO ONE?" WHO SAID "NO ONE?" YOU SAID IT. QUIT MAKING SHIT UP.
That "no one" at the FSF was aware of what the atari 7800 may or may not have done
Re: (Score:2)
All that matters is what the license ACTUALLY SAYS, and both of us spelled out exactly what it says about keeping software free. I'm not even sure where you got the idea that i interpreted the GPL wrong, clearly i haven't.
"YOU MADE A CLAIM AS TO WHAT THE CORE GOAL OF THE GPL WAS. I REFUTED IT YOU REFUSE TO BELIEVE RMS'S OWN WO
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unclear on exact what it is you don't believe.
Note that I am not talking about Stallman's intent, or the FSF's four point principals of software freedom, or any of the other fuzzy-feely stuff I've seen others mention in this thread. I am saying I see a legal violation of the text of the GPLv2. I am saying that TiVo broke the law.
What point(s) do you not believe?
(1) The GPLv2 requires that if you distribute a binary executable, you must make source av
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there are companies who want DRM to be a hard lock, unbreakable even if it screws over users in the process by breaking all sorts of other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I -still- rent DVDs, and rarely bother to make a copy of them, despite that its trivially easy and takes only a few minutes.
If you rent a movie in itunes and it deletes it after its been watched, that will be enough for most people in most cases, even if the file isn't 'protected' beyond that
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
Free stuff on the Linux partition, locked-down stuff on the Vista partition. :-)
linux users' translation (Score:2)
With the trash can being positioned just on the other side of the line...
Don't try to keep your business model alive... (Score:3, Insightful)
How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
(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:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine (Score:2, Insightful)
(4)Stop trying to tell us what software and hardware we're allowed to fucking use on that network
I think most sysadmins/network engineers would agree that the network owners are totally within their rights to limit/approve/control/monitor the h/w and s/w in use on their networks. The network owners are trying to provide the most stable environment for the largest number of paying customers.
I don't work for a telco but I do like to have a very reliable cell network (especially since I have no landline, voip etc).
Re:How Nokia and Linux can live together just fine (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then they should push users to adopt something (almost anything) else than Microsoft Windows.
Oh, sorry, cheap shot. :)
But really. The solution is simple (even though maybe painful to some): People should bear the consequences of their decisions.
So, if user chooses to use Windows (or Linux, Mac or whatever), is not able to keep it se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I fired that one off while distracted and doing several other things -- frankly, I'm surprised I wasn't modded off-topic. Not that I mind of course.
Slightly OT (Score:2)
Absolutely correct, but one caveat... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Technology is supposed to get better and better as time goes on. I expected robots to be doing most of the work now days, but that didn't happen. The point is, things should get cheaper, and th
Re:GPL v2 is fucking us over (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
My point was that the GP was trying to basically say the opposite - that GPLv3 would prevent a DRM situation that GPLv2 wouldn't. Given that Nokia are specifically separating things (in a similar way to the PS3, probably, from a legal stand-point at the least) then the GP's co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:wait, what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is a derivative work? (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're not the only person who thinks that. Whenever I hear people quoting Linus (one way) or the GPL's text (another way) as somehow an authority on the subject, I just shake my head. Developers and licenses don't (and can't) define derivative works; the law does. They do influence people's opinions on the matter, though.
Personally, it blows my mind that anyone could think a driver is a derivative work of a kernel. But I could be all wrong, since it's never gotten to court AFAIK.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't. The strategy that Perens outlines in his blog entry, is for Nokia to engineer their system such that their user-hostile is unambiguously not a derivative work of the GPLed code. If it's not a derivative work, then the GPL won't apply to the situation, so there's no way to insert a term into GPL that prohibits Nokia's nastiness.
If there were any possible