GnuGo for iPhone center of controversy.

kirkmc · **#41**

judicata wrote:

Come on, Kirk. It is hardly surprising that an advocacy organization criticizes companies that act in ways counter to the philosophy it advocates. Sometimes I raise my eyebrows at the FSF too, as they can be a bit heavy-handed for my tastes. But this isn't one of those times. Neither was the "BadVista" campaign or the campaign against DRM generally. Ask yourself why you are being so defensive here, and why everything Apple does has to be right.

I'm not being defensive, I'm simply pointing out that, from my vantage point as a tech journalist, what the FSF is doing here is ridiculous, and much of what they have done in the past is as well. While the campaign against DRM was certainly a good thing, the BadVista campaign was sophomoric and stupid.

And I've written enough elsewhere that not everything that Apple does is right. You can read my blog, or some of my articles, for plenty of criticism.

amnal · **#42**

kirkmc wrote:

The FSF has a history of attacking companies, whether it be blatant stupid attacks (their Vista sucks campaign, or whatever it's called), or this type of passive-agressive attack. The words they used were not of the type, "Oh, would you please change your conditions." They said, instead, "continuing their longstanding habit of preventing users from doing anything that Apple doesn't want them to do." No one is surprised at the FSF's attitude, and the FSF is far from having total approval in the world of free software because of their actions and the rigid GPL.

And, pray tell, what is Apple's long history of legal threats?

You call yourself a tech journalist...? Though I think you're just being wilfully ignorant rather than actually not knowing.

I expect FSF do all sorts of things I disagree with. But I *know* that Apple are no different, and likely nor are any other technology company. It's easy to point to examples, like Apple's cease and desist letter to BluWiki about content they hosted regarding making software sync with ipods (I think it had to do with decryption of the ipod database file but, again, I'm no expert). None of this activity was illegal, and Apple surely knew this, but their legal threat caused a great deal of disruption to these people. When countersued, Apple backed down, knowing that they hadn't a legal leg to stand on.

It is *this* kind of threatening, unscrupulous behaviour that the FSF has a problem with.

kirkmc · **#43**

amnal wrote:

kirkmc wrote:

The FSF has a history of attacking companies, whether it be blatant stupid attacks (their Vista sucks campaign, or whatever it's called), or this type of passive-agressive attack. The words they used were not of the type, "Oh, would you please change your conditions." They said, instead, "continuing their longstanding habit of preventing users from doing anything that Apple doesn't want them to do." No one is surprised at the FSF's attitude, and the FSF is far from having total approval in the world of free software because of their actions and the rigid GPL.

And, pray tell, what is Apple's long history of legal threats?

You call yourself a tech journalist...? Though I think you're just being wilfully ignorant rather than actually not knowing.

I expect FSF do all sorts of things I disagree with. But I *know* that Apple are no different, and likely nor are any other technology company. It's easy to point to examples, like Apple's cease and desist letter to BluWiki about content they hosted regarding making software sync with ipods (I think it had to do with decryption of the ipod database file but, again, I'm no expert). None of this activity was illegal, and Apple surely knew this, but their legal threat caused a great deal of disruption to these people. When countersued, Apple backed down, knowing that they hadn't a legal leg to stand on.

It is *this* kind of threatening, unscrupulous behaviour that the FSF has a problem with.

Well, you've cited one issue, which is not very clear. Apple has no more or fewer legal issues than other major tech companies. If anything, they get sued far more than they sue. They have had a number of high-profile cases, including one with a blogger who divulged trade secrets, and the recent one with the iPhone prototype, but their attitude is no different, regarding protecting their products, than other companies.

EDIT: Well, I'm not exactly correct. Their attitude is no different than that of companies that innovate. You won't find Dell suing a lot of people, because they don't create many products that aren't just knock-offs. Do some research and see how many other companies - say Microsoft, Sony, etc. - are involved in lawsuits. If anything, Apple has been the target of a number of frivolous patent lawsuits lately, because people think that, since it's a big company, maybe they can get something out of them. (This said, patent law is something that is becoming increasingly evil, and submarine patents have become the norm.)

If you want to talk about "threatening, unscrupulous behavior" look rather at the RIAA, the MPAA, ASCAP and others.

amnal · **#44**

kirkmc wrote:

Well, you've cited one issue, which is not very clear. Apple has no more or fewer legal issues than other major tech companies. If anything, they get sued far more than they sue. They have had a number of high-profile cases, including one with a blogger who divulged trade secrets, and the recent one with the iPhone prototype, but their attitude is no different, regarding protecting their products, than other companies.

Yes, I've cited one issue, which seems perfectly clear to me...Apple make baseless legal threat, threat causes disruption for a while until counterthreat, Apple back down completely. I'm not going to trawl every archive to find Apple's entire history of legal threats - it wouldn't convince you, and as a tech journalist I'm sure you actually already know.

Apple's attitude is indeed no different to that of other companies. I was actually saying that myself, and trying to point out that absurdity of finding the (in this case politer) behaviour of other companies Pythonesque in comparison to the harsh, unscrupulous and aggressive behaviour of one's own favourite.

I'm not going to keep arguing. It's disruptive, and it isn't like anyone new will be convinced of anything.

EDIT: Actually, I'm aware that other companies are involved in frivolous lawsuits. I dislike each and every one of these, and each and every company to some extent for doing it. I don't laugh at the FSF for trying to be constructive when given the opportunity themselves.

sumiyaka · **#45**

kirkmc wrote:

Apple works very closely with free software developers for Mac programs, even releasing a free version of much of their OS.

The way you write this seems to imply Apple developed an OS and handed some of it over to open source out of kindness. FreeBSD was around WAY before OSX. Apple built and tightly integrated a very slick user interface on top of it. It also brought in a lot of ideas, and maybe code, form NeXTstep. True, with the way the BSD license works Apple doesn't need to work with the free software community, but you make it sound like Apple just delivered the bulk of their OS to the world. It was actually the other way around

kirkmc · **#46**

sumiyaka wrote:

kirkmc wrote:

Apple works very closely with free software developers for Mac programs, even releasing a free version of much of their OS.

The way you write this seems to imply Apple developed an OS and handed some of it over to open source out of kindness. FreeBSD was around WAY before OSX. Apple built and tightly integrated a very slick user interface on top of it. It also brought in a lot of ideas, and maybe code, form NeXTstep. True, with the way the BSD license works Apple doesn't need to work with the free software community, but you make it sound like Apple just delivered the bulk of their OS to the world. It was actually the other way around

Actually, they took BSD Unix, made a lot of changes, then released the changed version as Darwin. So, yes, they started with open source software, then released their changes, as the BSD license requires.

Redbeard · **#47**

kirkmc wrote:

Actually, they took BSD Unix, made a lot of changes, then released the changed version as Darwin. So, yes, they started with open source software, then released their changes, as the BSD license requires.

Sorry, I can't let that stand. The BSD license does not require that companies release changes to code. It only requires that developers include a statement that the program contains BSD code. Developers are free to include BSD code in proprietary/closed source applications, which is why most of Apple and Microsoft products use it. The GPL requires that changes to the code be released, which is why Apple and Microsoft try to avoid using GPL code.

I felt that this needed to be clarified for those reading this thread who may not be familiar with these licenses.

kirkmc · **#48**

Redbeard wrote:

kirkmc wrote:

Actually, they took BSD Unix, made a lot of changes, then released the changed version as Darwin. So, yes, they started with open source software, then released their changes, as the BSD license requires.

Sorry, I can't let that stand. The BSD license does not require that companies release changes to code. It only requires that developers include a statement that the program contains BSD code. Developers are free to include BSD code in proprietary/closed source applications, which is why most of Apple and Microsoft products use it. The GPL requires that changes to the code be released, which is why Apple and Microsoft try to avoid using GPL code.

I felt that this needed to be clarified for those reading this thread who may not be familiar with these licenses.

Thanks, I thought they both had that condition.

cdybeijing · **#49**

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... g-brother/ (w/f/s)

*grabs popcorn* :geek:

GnuGo for iPhone center of controversy.

Who is online