Comment by aftbit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aftbit | Hacker News Reader

This is the worst part:

>Cisco argues that open source software could be consistent with the FCC's goals. "There is nothing in the Commission's existing or proposed rules that would limit or eliminate the ability of a developer to use Open Source software, including software that controls radio emissions," Cisco said in an FCC filing in November.

>But this would require a more locked-down approach than one in which users can modify the firmware, Cisco said. "The ability to review source code is not inherently incompatible with the notion of locking the integrity of a product against modification or tampering," Cisco wrote. "It is perfectly possible for a product to have source code that is capable of review by the public while that same code is secured inside the device against change by the end-users."

That misses many of the important goals of open source (and points back to the "open source" vs "free software" debate). It's not just about being able to view the existing software, it's about being able to control the systems that process your data.

For example, what if the manufacturer stops supporting the hardware? Today, you can just keep updating openwrt and avoid any security issues. After 2016, that won't be possible.

This is exactly what the GPLv3 protects against.

Which government regulation overrides.

What does that even mean? If regulators say it's illegal to comply with the license terms, you can't use products released under those terms. It's not like the GPL'd components fall into the public domain.

It means you can't license the baseband under the GPL, nor release it the public.

> It means you can't license the baseband under the GPL, nor release it the public

...within the jurisdiction of the US Government. Have a look at libdvdcss for guidance on how such a baseband might be developed and distributed.

There's a legal order of compliance. You don't get to break the law because you agree to a contract that stipulates you're going to break the law.

In this case, I bet the interpretation would be that if a piece of software requires you to break FCC law if sold as part of a Wifi router, then that software cannot be sold as part of a Wifi router.

Back to VxWorks in other words.

It doesn't override anything, if vendors must lock down their firmware, then they cannot use GPLv3'd software.

While I agree with you, if they don't have to release it, you'll never know unless you can successfully decompile the firmware.

This could already be the case with closed source firmwares, which could be using unlicensed non-FOSS blobs too for all you know.

If we're ignoring licences now then this is a different argument.

In a clause is contrary to public policy, it may be unenforceable in that jurisdiction and thus they could use the code without violating the license. The unenforceable clause will be skipped over by the courts. It is a nullity.

Nope nope nope. My license can say "cannot distribute in places where law x exists." My license can say "no one can distribute. period."

IANAL, but GPLv3 requires software to be modifiable by an user.

> If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information.

However, it can be still followed by not letting even Wi-Fi router vendor update the firmware on a device.

> But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

Otherwise, you cannot provide the program at all. It's intentional, it's supposed to provide pressure on regulations like FCC regulations, at least in theory (vendors who already use GPLv3 software, could complain to FCC that they cannot use free software licensed under GPLv3).

> If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all.

No, they couldn't. The GPL is a grany of rights, not a restriction of them - if you can't fulfil the criteria then you do not get the grant, regardless of public policy.

Nope nope nope. Gpl is a binary decision whether you are in compliance and can distribute or not. So, in this case, it would be negative, not allowed to distribute. Unless the law requires someone to distribute gpl software, which it doesn't, there is no conflict here.

See also: "Shared Source"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source

Glad to you brought this to my attention. My proprietary vs OSS essay promoting hybrids was going to change OSS to shared source to avoid confusion of established OSS definitions. Now, I suddenly find Microsoft has a brand of intiatives called Shared Source. They had to pick the most generic, intuitive thing I could come up with. This will probably cause confusion at some point. (sighs)

Might get away with it but maybe need alternatives. If not "open source" or "shared source," what's a generic phrase for software that includes the source but not necessarily OSS principles.

"transparent source"?

I like the word "transparent" especially as my main application area is countering subversion or fixing problems. Great idea. :)

hybrids are sometimes referred to as "open core projects".

A free software (often copyleft) core with addons, which usually means that contributions to the core are riddled with CLAs or other hurdles, if possible at all.

See mysql, openoffice (pre-Apache), ...

I'll try to remember that. Although, my model allows for entirely proprietary software with source available for review, extension, whatever. Any combo of source availability, freedom, or paid so long as a review is possible. I explained more in this essay:

http://pastebin.com/eRGtedU4

Why not focus on the specific properties you want? Something like "auditable source", which also implies a reproducible build.

Another good one. Thanks.

> If not "open source" or "shared source," what's a generic phrase for software that includes the source but not necessarily OSS principles.

"Published source"?

Appreciate the suggestion.

I like Openly Developed.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com