Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidw | Hacker News Reader

The Apache license is liberal and open, and very much free. RMS doesn't like the fact that you can build proprietary stuff on top of it, but sometimes you need that freedom in order to involve companies in your community.

I agree that we're still not seeing manufacturers do quite what we'd like, but I think it'll come with time, most likely in places that are not the United States: Europe and China most likely.

And, to be clear, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that it's going to come from Apple.

View on HN

This is a logical fallacy -- you define and use two definitions of the word "free" in the same context. On the one hand you associate freedom with RMS's context, which must include the ability to actually run the free code. RMS views the software and the specialized hardware it runs on as one and the same -- inseparable in freedom. In the sentence just before it, though, you argue that freedom is simply the Apache license as applied to software. In fact, what you are actually arguing begs the question because you assert that the software is free because it is under the Apache license, but we know that the Apache license is free because the software is liberal and open, as defined by the Apache license.

Before you can approach whether or not the software is free you must first define what free is. The parent poster is relatively safe in this because he provides RMS's definition of free, which is encoded in the GPLv3. Until you provide a similar definition I don't think one can state the software is either free or unfree.

I agree that we're still not seeing manufacturers do quite what we'd like, but I think it'll come with time, most likely in places that are not the United States: Europe and China most likely.

And, to be clear, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that it's going to come from Apple.

I think this is just speculation.

> define what free is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition - Android qualifies, except for a few bits and pieces.

> I think this is just speculation.

I'd bet a lot of money on it. Apple has a long, long history of making beautiful, innovative, forward-thinking, and fairly locked down products, from the Mac onwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition - Android qualifies, except for a few bits and pieces.

OK, but you admit that your definition of free isn't everyone's definition of free. To be even more precise, the OSI itself doesn't even call that definition free, they call it 'open source.' The FSF, in fact, has a contrary definition that they maintain is actually free software. Both parties refer to the OSI as 'open source' and the FSF as 'free.'

This leads in to the main problem that Google/Android have -- when they market Android as being open they don't really define what open is. It is prima facie true that Android is not open on all fronts, so the question is really what Google considers "open" to mean.

Jobs put this observation into an interesting context because it's important to note that a lot of software in the iPhone is free as well. In the manual you will find a list (quite a long one) of all the GPL and BSD licensed software included inside the iPhone. The question, then, isn't who is open and who is closed, but what the definition of 'open' is and who more closely abides by it.

    OK, but you admit that your definition of free isn't 
    everyone's definition of free

No shit ... my definition of "free" includes me distributing the code I made however I want.

If it where for me I would include a new rule in the OSI definition that excludes GPL from being called "open source", because its copyleft extends to the whole package that links to GPL pieces, and for me this is not "free".

    Both parties refer to the OSI as 'open source' and the 
    FSF as 'free.'

The Apache license has been approved as "Free Software", which is by no means the same as "free" ... an English word that you cannot trademark.

    It is prima facie true that Android is not open on all 
    fronts

In my definition of "open" that doesn't include forcing the phone manufacturers to not build locked phones.

If my voice doesn't matter (I'm a nobody) here's the voice of Linus Torvalds (you know, the guy without whom you can't speak about Linux):

    [Stallman] calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he 
    has made up, and a term I find offensive, so I don't 
    choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo never did 
    anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The 
    fact that they do their hardware and have some DRM 
    issues with the content producers and thus want to 
    protect the integrity of that hardware.

    The kernel license covers the *kernel*. It does not 
    cover boot loaders and hardware, and as far as I'm 
    concerned, people who make their own hardware can 
    design them any which way they want. Whether that means 
    "booting only a specific kernel" or "sharks with 
    lasers", I don't care.

And I don't care about what Jobs says, the real question is: can you build your own iOS phone? can you participate in its development (like contributing bug fixes)? Can you choose phones from multiple manufacturers and multiple carriers? Can you install your own apps on it without going through that certification shit-hole?

No? Well Android is a lot more open, regardless of definition.

That defines "open". Free is defined here:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Also, the FSF (and I assume by extension RMS) has no problem with the Apache 2.0 license which is a free software license and compatible with GPLv3.

So, it's not free? "except for a few bits and pieces" It's either free or it's not. "except" should not enter the vocabulary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com