> Xiaofan Chen <xiaofanc <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > True. I think the kernel developers are all good people. IMHO the problem
> > is the GPL license, not the kernel developers.

> The GPL license is not a problem. Like *any* license it is a solution to
> a problem, namely to that of unapproved theft (or 'lifting') of code from
> the public domain towards proprietary applications which are then sold
> for a lot of money by pigopolist companies. That is how and why the GPL
> was created, and that is the purpose it serves best. Other licenses serve
> other purposes, such as ensuring a revenue stream for a company in the
> face of copycat competition. The GPL is not that type of license (no
> version thereof).

> The GPL's purpose IS to prevent misappropriation of code and its sale in
> a brand named box. Anybody who does not understand this or perceives this
> *fundamental* fact as 'limiting', misses the point about what the GPL is
> all about, and why it exists. The GPL never did, does not, and never will
> be endorsing or helping uses of source code that involve its removal from
> the publically accessible form it is in now, neither in whole nor in
> part.
>
> Anybody expecting the GPL to become 'more permissive' towards pigopolist
> code (mis)uses is wasting his or her time. Companies which try to
> capitalize on the popularity of GPL code among developers and popularize
> their code by piggy-backing on this bandwagon release their code under
> dual licenses. But this does not change or affect the GPL, and gives no
> reason to expect the GPL code-base itself to EVER become dual-licensed or
> otherwise 'grab-able'.

> > I think Linux is good in terms of technical merit and I believe this is
> > what Linus often emphasizes. However the ambiguity of the GPL license
> > and the top leader in the GNU organization (who seems to push some kind
> > of political agenda IMHO) is limiting its success it deserves in the
> > embedded arena.
>
> If by top leader you mean Linus, you have your priorities wrong. Linux is
> a coder, and his major contribution is the kernel. He did not write the
> GPL he chose to use it because it suited his goals, namely that of
> protecting his kernel from the greedy 'incorporators' and that of keeping
> it publically available and open to other contributors and to peer review
> (in a way different from the Unix code before, which had been 'grabbed'
> and that of Minix, with which he compared his initial effort).

> The GPL
> was designed just exactly for that, so he used it. The political part is
> the FSF which does indeed have a political agenda. Its political agenda
> is, as described above, derived from historical facts which are very
> serious, and which are (together with the FSF), a part of US democracy.
> There is no point in whining about the 'political agenda' of the FSF, or
> in expecting it to change under public pressure (where the 'public' is a
> rather narrowly delimited set of developers who hope that their whining
> will cause a just political cause and its approximately one million
> supporters to turn 180 degrees in their favor, so they can make some more
> money while hanging on to their prejudices about not releasing source
> code they deem so precious, but which at the same time represents a tiny
> fraction of the aggregated work they are rebranding, when they publish it
> aggregated with GPL operating systems).

> Byron Jeff <byronjeff <at> clayton.edu> writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 10:53:27AM +0000, Peter P. wrote:
> > Peter,
> > A bit too much rhetoric here.
>
> Ok, but ... see below
>
> > In embedded space the GPL (and LGPL) are problematic from a kernel and
> > library standpoint because there are not separate spaces in which kernel,
>
> Yesno. If you search a little, you will see that the most popular Linux
> embedded systems are MMU-less ARM and MIPS CPU powered. That includes most
> ADM5xxx routers (MIPS) and the Sharp Zaurus and more. The latter case is a good
> example of 'embedded system' where an almost fully featured Linux distribution
> exists in a non-separate (and inseparable) code and data space (there is no MMU
> in the Zaurus). How it is linked is moot. Today it is linked 'clean', tomorrow
> it could use 'accelerator hooks' directly into the kernel (a la m$)(${deity}
> forbid, that is a maintainance nightmare). The key idea seems to be the bottom
> line. The bottom line is the fact that THE FULL SOURCE IS AVAILABLE. Ultimately,
> no matter what is in it, the fact that the source is available solves the
> problem in the spirit of the GPL (although likely not in the letter - maybe that
> particular problem should be addressed somwhow, but not by me).

> > The GPL (and to a lesser degree the LGPL) are deliberately heavyhanded in
> > order to curtail the misuse of the code under those licenses. If everyone
> > could agree to be reasonable and not greedy, then a less permissive license
> > could work. However many commercial developers believe that profit is made
> > by doing a value add and creating artificial scarcity. So they do precisely
> > what Peter proposes: take open software, value add, then close up the
> > results. The GPL is designed precisely to prevent that activity.
>
> I am NOT proposing that. I was illustrating that as being precisely a breach of
> the GPL license in spirit and in letter.

> > Now Peter is probably not satisfied with this because it allows for
> > pigolopolies (interesting word) to build closed source commercial apps
> > using free libraries/kernels.
>
> <aside>The pigopoly(st) word comes indirectly from Orwell's works and is used
> frequently by The Register, which I find inspirational (in the sense of
> uncovering the manure aroma that surrounds certain IT and tech issues with some
> humor and a lot of sting - that's http://www.theregister.co.uk for whom does not
> know)</aside>
>  
> What I am not satisfied with is the idea that GPL code which was released and
> conceived as GPL could somehow become something other than GPL by clever
> manipulations in a court or by a commitee. I am very satisfied with the idea
> that specific libraries and kernels and whatnot conceived to be used as you say
> exist and are created, under licenses OTHER than GPL. While I can understand
> that most people want to keep their cake, and eat it too, the GPL is not a good
> candidate for cake. It was created and engineered for the purpose of stubbornly
> resisting consumption and removing the poison and the thorns is next to
> impossible (as expected).

> > Not every commercial company is by definition only a taker.
>
> I never said they were. This discussion is not about 'takers' it is about 'GPL
> takers' specifically. In fact, most companies with serious technical backing
> have several aces up their sleeves and can (and did, and will), use the right OS
> for various products. Be it VxWorks, Linux, ucOS, FreeBSD or whatever. The 'GPL
> pigopolism' issue only applies to cheapskates who try to cut the last corner
> even when there is nothing left to cut. Unsurprisingly, I have found the quality
> of many (several I have seen so far) such products (which are in violation of
> the GPL by using Linux and not publishing the source) lacking. As an example, a
> certain router that has no source and several serious bugs, as well as a built
> in upgrade path, that was never used, because the company preferred to stall and
> drop the product instead of publishing the source. As a result, the firmware is
> still at V0.0a and there is no way to fix it. That makes for a workhour-sink
> doorstep for anyone not in on the bugs, who tries to make it work by tinkering
> wit it, looking for a workaround.

> > Over the years I've become a firm believer in the "Your code is your code,
> > and free code is free code." philosophy. I really don't care what a company
> > does with the code they themselves develop so long as when they use free
> > infrastructure, they contribute to the infrastructure.
>
> More or less always true, not just for code. Even drinks and munchies
> contributed at a party work like that.
>  
> > I have a feeling that's what Xiaofan is looking for. And to a degree he is
> > correct in his belief that the GPL overcompensates in the embedded space
> > because it seeks to turn your code into free code on hardware systems that
> > cannot differentiate kernel space from user space.
>
> Yesno. Again, the GPL is probably not the best license for embedded. Maybe there
> should exist a EGPL license for this. After all, if Linus has already 'bent' the
> GPL for the kernel, to suit his purposes, he could do some more of it. But that
> does not change the fact that the current GPL codebase is, and stays, GPL. And,
> as others have discovered, the only solution in case of really wanting the
> features, is rewriting from scratch. This can be done before or after the s**t
> hits the fan, at the implementor's discretion (and love for egg on the face and
> worse).

> I'll put it in the form of a question: On your Linux box, how do you handle
> Flash applications? There are 3 or so options:
>
> 1) I don't do flash.
> 2) I do Gnash
> 3) I use Adobe's closed source Flash player/plugin.
>
> Personally I do #3. It works in most situations. Would I like Adobe to
> release the source? Sure! But from a practical standpoint they honor the
> lines of demarcation by using standard LGPL libraries.

> > The purpose of the GPL here is to force all code that uses it to be as free
> > as it is. That's as problematic as closed source software in my book.
>
> I do not agree. The WRT54GL and other devices are proof that this is so.
>  
> > I have no problem with modifications to the GPL/LGPL infrastructure having
> > to be source available. But there is a difference between building and
> > infrasturcture and using it.

> Correct. That's why valuable already built infrastructure is protected by
> the GPL. So it cannot be used in a spirit different from that of the GPL.
> Deliberately.

> > I'm a believer of free infrastucture coupled with whatever you want
> > applications. I can choose not to use your application because it is not
> > free source available. But I'm not about to force anyone to free their
> > personally written code just to appease me.

> You don't need to do anything. It's, again, simple: nobody is forced to
> use any GPL code. According to the commercial vendors, and there are
> plenty, their offer is better. Why use GPL when you can have something
> better ? If you need free free, as in air, use an open source BSD
> variant. Just, again, don't expect the GPL people to turn towards you and
> oblige. Every person who publishes GPL code has his and her reasons. Who
> am I to discuss them ?

> > The letter and sprit of the GPL only works when all code is free. It
> > doesn't function in an environment where all free code isn't an option.
>
> Exactly. And until a solution will be found, perhaps in the form of the EGPL,
> the WRT54GL model will be the only one that will work. A consumer product that
> has become something of a legend and outsold its expected lifetime by about
> five years. The makers are likely at the point where they just reorder units
> and count the money. Nor is the WRT54GL alone. At http://www.linuxdevice.com, as you
> know, many of its brothers and sisters are preparing to share its fame (adn fate).
>  
> > > There cannot be a middle ground in this issue. That is the point.
> >
> > Yes there can be. I strongly disagree with this point. By stating there is
> > no middle ground it completely forces anyone with commercial interest from
> > participating because by your stance in order to play, everything you do
> > must be free. I don't advocate stealing mind you. But creating lines of
> > demarcation and vigoursly enforcing them works.

> Try to look at it in causality order: developers join a GPL project for
> their reasons. They write kernel code for 10 years, agreeing about the
> license for all this time, and contributing in the belief that the
> license will protect their IP in that spirit. Dozens, hundreds of them.
> Then someone decides from the outside that he likes the code so much he'd
> like to put it in a box with his name on it.  Can he do it ? No. Why ?
> Because the GPL is there to prevent that. Game over.

> In causality order, his need to do something about the GPL comes 10 years
> too late (actually more like 16 or so). The someone who would like to
> repurpose and box the nice product is actually repeating what the US
> government did with Unix source code in the 1980s, giving back to At&T
> something they no longer owned, pissing off two dozen universities and
> probably a million students over the following 10 years (they had to do
> homework 'on paper'), and even facing UCB which sued and won (settled out
> of court afaik) over the code it contributed to Unix, thus giving birth
> to BSD *nix as it is known today. And THAT is precisely what the GPL is
> designed to prevent, before the fact.

> > I'll put it in the form of a question: On your Linux box, how do you handle
> > Flash applications? There are 3 or so options:
> >
> > 1) I don't do flash.
> > 2) I do Gnash
> > 3) I use Adobe's closed source Flash player/plugin.
> >
> > Personally I do #3. It works in most situations. Would I like Adobe to
> > release the source? Sure! But from a practical standpoint they honor the
> > lines of demarcation by using standard LGPL libraries.

> Again, yesno. The flash code is forced upon users by is use by
> webmasters. You do not *have* to use flash, least of all on linux.

> But
> you decided to use it, and found a way. Yet, it is a way that has nothing
> to do with the kernel. It is a standalone library that can be installed
> on a plethora of systems. Had it been a kernel mode driver, it would have
> been a different type of thing. And that's the point. After all, one can
> run ff and flash on FreeBSD with the linux personality module loaded. No
> problem.

> > So we actually agree on something. The kernel and libraries are
> > infrastructure. Free to everyone. Used by everyone. All modifications
> > shared. No problem.
>  
> > But you keep wanting to extend this into application space. And embedded
> > systems hardware forces this extension. If I build an embedded system on an
> > ARM and use standard kernel and libraries, why should I be forced to
> > release my source? I'm in user land. It's just that user land, library
> > land, and kernel land all overlap in an embedded system.
>
> I don't want anything, I just learned that I need to pay careful attention to
> what is being said and written. The licenses say that the linux kernel is GPL,

> > No one wants to change the existing GPL codebase. In fact that's the exact
> > problem that I have with the BSD license: the existing codebase can be
> > changed and horded. However, if new code is generated that does absolutely
> > positively nothing but use the existing codebase in a standard manner, then
> > how exactly does this affect that existing GPL codebase?
>
> BSD is not GPL. Whatever you affect or do not affect is not relevant. What is
> relevant is that the GPL people WANT THE SOURCE OPEN. My unceasing repetition
> of the same thing in this thread is becoming obnoxious even to myself. I will
> try to put is in one paragraph, and this is the last time I write this: The GPL
> is about being able to publish, use and reuse source without its being grabbed.
> Linking is perceived as grabbing. The GPL strongly incorporates a reaction to a
> partially successful attempt at grabbing what was believed to be public domain
> 'academic' code in the 1980s. Because of the shady and putrid aspects of that
> debacle GPL people are VERY sensitive to issues such as linking and embedding.
> Once you understand this, there is nothing left to argue about. For closed
> source, use BSD or VxWorks or whatever. Not GPL. Here is some fun reading:

> > > Because the code you put into a device is 'distribution'.
> >
> > No. That's not the issue. The sole issue is that fact that the device
> > creates constraints such that the juxtaposition of my code and the free code
>
> The device does not create constraints, you create constraints. Nothing is
> stopping you from using a larger embedded PC that can run a full Linux
> distribution where you can add your aplication as a binary and all would be
> fine. Just like no-one is stopping you from buying a VxWorks license and moving
> it to that (and save some flash space in the process).

> > Why is the embedded environment any different than the desktop?
>
> ^^
>
> > We keep saying the same things. We agree on the infrastruture. But you
> > still haven't addressed applications other than "if you don't like the way
> > it is, then hit the highway!"
>
> a.) there is no 'infrastructure'. The 'infrastructure' is a full blown complete
> system. Calling this an 'infrastructure' is like a painter calling the 500 room
> castle that houses his temporary painting exhibit 'infrastructure'. In a way, it
> is, but you can't really avoid smiling at the idea.