[Tfug] GPL Worthless?

[Bexley Hall]

Hi Erich,

--- On Sun, 9/9/12, erich <erich1 at copper.net> wrote:

> I think this debate about GPL is just the froth on the cauldron.

Gack!  "Cauldron"??  Remind me never to have dinner at *your* place!
;-)

> Traditionally big companies such as IBM and HP would contribute
> items to the Linux community, and distros would incorporate these
> software technologies into their upgrades.
> 
> Enter Google. The software giant has the resources to completely
> modify the kernel and the associated architecture to satisfy their
> own business plan. Never mind whether or not anything they do
> can be incorporated into Debian/FC or whatever.
> 
> To put it another way, Does Debian run on tablet PC's or smartphones?
> or is it just for server farms?

I suspect you could get some portion of it running on a tablet or
smartphone.  But, would probably have problems with certain 
"subsystems".  E.g., you might not be able to get the phone (radio)
to work.  And, if you wanted to change *how* the radio worked,
I'm reasonably sure you'd be SoL!  You don't have the *freedom*
to venture into those "black boxes" -- regardless of how significant
their functionality might be!

In practical terms, an "open/etc." license only works to the extents
(meaning "boundaries") that the work(s) is "open".  As long as everything
that you could conceivably need to inspect or alter is "visible" to
you, you can act oblivious to those portions that might NOT be visible!

However, once you try to cross into a subsystem/library that is
*opaque*, you're screwed -- "off limits".  So, if the license
allows portions of an application to be opaque, then you're
denied the "freedom" to inspect/alter/enhance/repair those subsystems.

If you live entirely in userland, chances are, you'll never
have a problem:  your environment is bounded by well-defined
interfaces and, as long as you take care to only use "open"
libraries, you are free to reimplement anything you choose!

You can even creep into the kernel -- as long as you avoid those
"black box" subsystems (that the GPL appears to *allow*!).

E.g., if my application wants to have a namespace that accepts
paths like:
   >home>boys/girls>lucy<<moms&dads>joe>...---...
which might correspond to something like:
   /home/boysORgirls/lucy/../../momsANDdads/joe/SOS
I can write a filesystem that sits above the disk device and below
my application.  Or, write an emulation layer that sits between my
application and makes a traditional namespace look like the namespace
I want/need (admittedly, with some limitations).

But, if I want to make that "computer" look like a giant SCSI
disk drive (or array... or even a SCSI "Processor" class device),
you' be hard pressed getting the SCSI HBA to operate in target
mode -- even if you had the skills to modify the kernel and
related drivers, accordingly!  Because the "firmware" on the
SCSI HBA is, almost surely, "closed" to you!
 
> My sister-in-law blissfully spends hours on her Ipad with never a
> thought to the legions of server farms that make her experience
> possible.

I suspect that's true of most consumers -- not just iPad users.
We'll see how the world deals with the first *extended* outage
of The Cloud  :>

(This will be an even bigger problem as "vendors" -- especially
media vendors -- move to a pay-per-play model)

--don