Slashdot

On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 10:32:45AM -0500, Timothy Brownawell via RT wrote:
> If someone were to buy both a "User Product" and a piece of software
> under GPLv3 from the same retailer at the same time (checkout once,
> credit card gets charged once, they all arrive in the same box, etc),
> how does this work with the installation information requirements?

Timothy,

I'm going to put forward an example of the kind of situation I think we're
talking about, to help make sure we're on the same page. If I
misunderstood something, please let me know.

Suppose I go to an online retailer and order two things: a cell phone (a
User Product), and a GNU/Linux distribution that includes GPLv3-covered
software. In this case, nobody has to provide Installation Information
telling me how to install the GPLv3-covered software on the cell phone. To
conclude that someone was required to provide such information, one would
have to read "with" considerably more broadly than we intended it. There
should be some intentional connection between the User Product and the
software, rather than a merely coincidental one. So, an example of how the
software could be conveyed "with... a User Product" is if the cell phone
came with a firmware upgrade CD-ROM in its box that incorporated
GPLv3-covered code.

> (Also, is this address archived online somewhere, or can I post online
> whatever response this might get?)

This address is not publicly archived. However, you may republish this
entire e-mail without any modifications or omissions.

Best regards,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Please note that I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice.

[Anyone who actually reads this should also read this other article, which basically says that this is full of crap (and explains how).]

The current draft of the GNU GPL v3 includes several paragraphs intended to prevent "Tivoization", or the use of GPL software in non-user-modifiable devices. This seems to be at odds with the paragraph on complilations, and also with the "Fields of Endeavor" section (s.6) of the DFSG. (It is also very clearly against the spirit of the "no contamination" section (s.9), although that section is worded to only cover contamination of software.)

Compilations

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

COTS hardware has an odd tendency to not be designed around specific pieces of software, and devices assembled from such hardware would tend to have a similar lack of dependence. So I kinda suspect that the hardware is independent of the software. I would also say that the software must be independent of the hardware, or where woult Tivo have gotten it from in the first place, when nobody *had* the hardware yet?

So, I would argue that if the Tivo were purely software, it should be covered as an "aggregate". And this does not seem to be disputed, as I haven't noticed calls for the Tivo hardware to be GPL'd if they want to continue distributing it.

An example: say I have a closed-source IDE, and ship it with GCC as the compiler. Let's further say that this IDE only accepts a compiler binary which has been signed by the IDE distributors, and that the version GCC it ships with has been modified to accept a different command-line argument syntax that this IDE uses. Is this aggregation? GCC clearly isn't dependent on the IDE, and if the IDE was dependent on GCC then why did GCC have to be modified? It could just as easily work with any other compiler that took the same special syntax, GCC was just used because it provided a convenient starting point.

What makes hardware special?

"Fields of Endeavor"

There are some devices which legally cannot be fully user-modifiable, such as software radios. I would rather suspect that this would count as a "Field of Endeavor", and so make the proposed GPLv3 DFSG-incompatible.

There is also the possibility of devices which cannot work (or cannot legally work) without approval by some third party (such as, perhaps, video players and various movie industry groups like the MPAA or AACS LA). It seems just as reasonable to also consider making this kind of device as a "Field of Endeavor", which again would be forbidden by GPLv3 if the controlling party chose to forbid user-modifiable devices. Making the proposed GPLv3 again DFSG-incompatible.

"No Contamination"

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software.

I think it odd that this is limited to software, and can't seem to find any discussion of this. If the limitation is regarded as an oversight, as seems reasonable, then the Tivo section in the new GPL is entirely contrary to this section.

The OSI Open Source Definition

The OSI Open Source Definition is very very similar to the DFSG, and the current proposed GPLv3 has all of the same problems and likely problems with it that it does with the DFSG.

This is a bad idea.

Do we really want a license which is of many minds regarding compilations? And do we really want large numbers of basic utilities to move to a license that excludes them from probably the most freedom-concerned distribution there is? That should cause some major forks and incredible hard times as it fragments the community.

For a relevant flamewar from LKML to warm your coffe with, see http://kerneltrap.org/node/8382.
A debian-legal thread about GPLv3 can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg36757.html.

Most current energy sources have significant problems, which will make them less and less usable as energy needs and environmental restrictions continue to advance. Even most so-called "green" or "renewable" energy sources cannot be made viable as long-term solutions, simply because they depend on sunlight as the origin of the energy that they provide.

Given that sunlight provides about 1kW/sq. yard, and the radius of the earth is about 6400 km, the maximum possible output of these "green" power sources is about 150000 terawatts. Given a world population of about 6 billion, this works out to about 25 MW per person. Now considering that the reason these power sources are considered "green" is that they don't have a substatial impact on the environment it becomes clear that not even a percent of this maximum output can be realized while maintaining this "green" status -- let's assume 0.01% coverage is acceptable, so the output can be up to 2.5 kW per person.

Now consider that charging an electric car takes about 1.2 MW, and driving it will use about 12.5 kW -- simply driving takes 5x the available energy for one person! Clearly, current "green" power is not a long-term solution.

Fossil fuels can provide higher power for a short time, as the act more as large energy reserivoirs which have been filled over the past few thousand years; however, there are two major problems: they cannot provide long-term power because those reerivoirs will quickly become depleted, and they are commonly understood to harm the environment (as well as being generally stinky and unpleasant to live near).

Current possibilities are nuclear and geothermal power. It is not currently known how scalable geothermal power is; perhaps it can scale to the required total power, perhaps not. Additionally, geothermal power requires that the local geography be at least somewhat cooperative.

The best currently known solution is nuclear. Waste doesn't have to be a problem, as you can either reprocess it to extract the valuble component elements (some of which can even be re-used as fuel again), or sell it to someone who wishes to use it. New plants can be built wherever there is sufficient water; on coastlines or at see, or on major rivers. Smaller single-community sized plants could likely even be built near small rivers, or perhaps even large streams.