Computing » FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon, Part 3

The Internet has become the most popular medium of software interchange for open source projects, as well as how most people receive updates for proprietary software. Arguing that the Internet is not a customary medium for exchanging software because some people can't access it makes as little sense as arguing that DVDs aren't an acceptable medium because people with netbooks or tablets don't have DVD drives.

FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon, Part 2

Where did this "you are permanently barred from distributing" stuff originate? In digging around, I found a post titled "A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance" at the Software Freedom Law Center dated August 26, 2008, written by the team of Bradley M. Kuhn, Aaron Williamson and Karen M. Sandler.

5.2 Termination

...

If you have redistributed an application under GPLv2, but have violated the terms of GPLv2, you must request a reinstatement of rights from the copyright holders before making further distributions, or else cease distribution and modification of the software forever. Different copyright holders condition reinstatement upon different requirements, and these requirements can be (and often are) wholly independent of the GPL. The terms of your reinstatement will depend upon what you negotiate with the copyright holder of the GPL'd program.

Since your rights under GPLv2 terminate automatically upon your initial violation, all subsequent distributions are violations and infringements of copyright. Therefore, even if you resolve a violation on your own, you must still seek a reinstatement of rights from the copyright holders whose licenses you violated, lest you remain liable for infringement for even compliant distributions made subsequent to the initial violation.

...

In the context of a GPL violation, and particularly under v2's termination provision, the copyright holder may have a range of requests in exchange for reinstatement of rights.

This completely overlooks the fact that section 6 of the same GPLv2 states that a new GPLv2 license is automatically granted with every copy of the program received. Any products that would be infringing would be limited to those that were shipped under a previously terminated license. Another issue is whether such a lopsided interpretation is copyright abuse and could nullify the license restrictions.

But let's take a break from the legal mumbo-jumbo.

How Do People Get F/LOSS Software Nowadays?

I find mine on the Net. If you're reading this, there's a good chance you do too. Now consider section 4.1.1 of the same SFLC article, which states:

GPLv2 refers to the various storage mechanisms as "medi[a] customarily used for software interchange." While the Internet has attained primacy as a means of software distribution where super-fast Internet connections are available, GPLv2 was written at a time when downloading software was not practical (and was often impossible). For much of the world, this condition has not changed since GPLv2's publication, and the Internet still cannot be considered "a medium customary for software interchange." (emphasis added)

Seriously? It was possible to find three people who still believed that in 2008? And put their names to it? 1991 called, and they want their AOL and Compuserve back. The Internet is definitely "a medium customary for software interchange." It has become the most popular medium of software interchange for open source projects, as well as how most people receive updates for proprietary software.

Arguing that the Internet is not a customary medium for exchanging software because some people can't access it makes as little sense as arguing that DVDs aren't an acceptable medium because people with netbooks or tablets don't have DVD drives.

Times Change

There's a history of using this "on the Internet doesn't count -- it must be on a CD or DVD" argument to try to encourage distributors to ship the source side-by-side with the program itself, rather than just an offer of the source. That sort of coercion is not acceptable.

Throwing a CD in every box is bad for the environment. In embedded devices such as TVs and routers, embedding the source in the device wastes memory and increases costs to consumers. Memory might be cheap, but it's not free, and designers of embedded applications frequently find themselves fighting for every bit of RAM. It's why they ship busybox instead of the individual utilities.

Today, exchanging software "on the Internet" is as valid as "on a DVD," and certainly better than "on a floppy."

Computing » FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon, Part 4

Sharing source code benefits everyone involved. However, heavy-handed attempts to impose further restrictions on end-users beyond the license, or to ask people to harass developers to switch, just come off as "sturm und drang" by nitpickers. Hopefully this doesn't presage the rise of the GNUstapo.

FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon, Part 3

"Strike while the iron is hot" -- and the usual suspects have made Android licensing a hot issue. However, the title of the FSF article, "Android GPLv2 termination worries -- one more reason to upgrade to GPLv3," gives the game away. This is about politics, not licensing. About pushing a specific agenda. About promoting the GPLv3 license at the expense of the GPLv2, Linux, Android and reality.

It's natural that there will be people and organizations engaging in bit of opportunistic profile-raising when they see an opportunity. Sometimes, as with the FSF GPLv2 FUD, they overreach and need to be called on it. And sometimes they really put their foot in it, as the Linux Foundation's Jim Zemlin did when he recently labeled businesses that don't contribute back code as "idiots."

One Size Does Not Fit All

If the GPLv3 were so wonderful, there would be no need to post articles saying, "Companies that sell products that use Android can help out by encouraging the developers of Linux to make the switch to GPLv3." Especially when the reality is that releasing the decryption keys to unlock mobile systems would kill Android on Linux, and the developers are already on record as saying they have no problems with the current license and have better things to do with their time.

The social and political objectives of the FSF (and by extension, gnu.org) are not always the same as other members of the community. In a world with various shades of grey and different needs and goals, the reality is that one license does not fit all projects, and zealotry is ugly.

What Isn't Free Software?

When I go to the Free Software Foundation home page, I see this:

you deserve to use software that is:

• free from restriction
• free to share and copy
• free to learn and adapt
• free to work with others
• you deserve free software.

Critics have rightly pointed out that by this definition, the GPL does not meet these standards. This doesn't make it a bad license -- sharing source code benefits everyone involved. However, heavy-handed attempts to impose further restrictions on end-users beyond the license, or to ask people to harass developers to switch, just come off as "sturm und drang" by nitpickers. Hopefully this doesn't presage the rise of the GNUstapo.

Some Takeaways

1. If you are a coder, do not give up your control over your work by assigning copyrights to an organization that says "trust us." They may decide at some future date to "leverage" your code in ways you never intended;
2. Remove any references to "or any later version" of the license. If you wouldn't give them a blank check, don't give them the license equivalent;
3. Keep in mind how a magician will always try to get you to focus your attention on one hand, so you don't see what the other hand is doing. The original article overemphasizes section 4 of the GPL to make a case for "permanent" risk, in the hope that you won't notice the ease of obtaining a new license without encumbrances in section 6, or ignore the fact that take-it-or-leave-it licenses are always interpreted in the recipients' favor;
4. Don't believe everything the license says. The GPL says that you have no rights if you do not accept the license, which is simply not true. The GPL (any version) only applies to the extent that copyright law currently allows it. Post-Feist, there are more restrictions on what is actually copyrightable. There is no "sweat of the brow" copyright, nor other material that fails to meet, even slightly, the constitutional basis for copyright -- to "promote the progress of science and useful arts," aka encouraging creative expression;
5. If someone is particularly nasty, keep in mind that courts have also held (Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata) that even the copying of complete copyrighted programs without the copyright holders' permission is allowed if the only way to extract non-protected data is to do so, and that abusive copyright holders can lose their rights;
6. There are always alternatives, whether it's a particular program, a toolchain, or an operating system.

The Ultimate Consequences

Casting doubt on Android and Linux licensing has two easily discernable effects. Manufacturers, for their part, will be more likely to consider other platforms, and who can blame them?

And it's a safe bet that Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) is working on a BSD-hosted version of Android as a fallback. I know if I were them, that's what I'd be doing, just in case.

Computing » Parallels 7 Swings In

Parallels' virtualization software for Mac has been bumped up to version 7. The new edition supports special features found in OS X Lion, like the operating system's new gesture controls, as well as enhanced speed when running Windows. The company has also integrated a mobile app that lets you control a Parallels-running Mac from an iOS device.

A new version of Parallels Desktop, the software that allows you to run multiple operating systems on your Mac simultaneously, was released this week. This latest edition of the popular virtualization software, which is on more than 3 million desktops worldwide, has more than 90 new and enhanced features, as well as a new mobile app that runs on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.

This release of Parallels, version 7, also supports the latest edition of Apple's (Nasdaq: AAPL) OS X operating system, Lion.

Version 7 of the software is 120 percent faster than its leading competitor when copying files in Windows, according to Parallels, and 40 percent faster when starting and resuming Windows. It's faster than release 6 of the program, too -- 60 percent faster when resuming Windows and for some applications, 45 percent faster for 3D graphics.

Better Speed

This latest release is definitely an improvement over the previous version, according to Ivan Drucker, of IvanExpert, a company that provides support to users of Apple products. "I was pretty happy with version 6, but [version 7] does feel more responsive, and more speed is always better," he told MacNewsWorld.

Among Mac users, Parallels has a reputation for strong integration of the operating systems that it's running, while its chief commercial competitor, VMware (NYSE: VMW) Fusion, is known for its speed. That may not be the case anymore. "At this point, I feel that Parallels is ahead of VMware on both fronts," Drucker said.

In addition to support of Lion features -- such as Mission Control, Launch Pad and full-screen scroll gestures -- and speed improvements, the new Parallels allows multiple copies of Lion to be run simultaneously, as well as running operating systems other than Windows, such as Chrome and Ubuntu. If those operating systems are running in Parallels, though, they can't access Lion's features as Windows can.

It also has a Windows On Demand feature that allows that operating system to be purchased directly from inside Parallels. What's more, a Mac's iSight or FaceTime HD camera can be used by both Mac and Windows programs.

To Upgrade or Not to Upgrade?

Released along with Parallels is a a mobile app, available from the iTunes store, that allows a Mac running Parallels 7 to be remotely controlled by one of Apple's mobile devices. Through it, you can watch Flash videos running in Windows on a device like an iPad, which doesn't support that technology. In addition, text can be cut, copied and pasted between applications running in Parallels and the mobile device.

Of course, the question that arises whenever a new version of any software is released is, is it worth it? "Is it an essential upgrade? I don't know. Is it a worthwhile upgrade? Yes," Drucker said.

Much of the buzz of several years surrounding desktop virtual machine products like Parallels seems to have waned, but the demand for them hasn't. "The demand has been off the charts," claimed John Uppendahl, Parallels' senior director for global communications, told MacNewsWorld "It's increased significantly year over year."

While not a staple for most computer users, virtual machine software has gained a following among business users with specialized needs or need for a particular piece of software that isn't available for the Mac, as well as some gamers, explained Ross Rubin, an analyst with the NPD Group.

"In the case of games, though, the best performance is achieved using dual booting," he added. "When you use virtualizaton software like Parallels or VMware, you need a beefier machine configuration because you're running two operating systems at the same time."

The standard retail price for Parallels 7 for the Mac is US$79.99. There's also a student edition for $39.99 and a switch from VMWare Fusion edition for $49.99. Current users of Parallels can upgrade the version 7 for $49.99. In addition, there's a 14-day, fully functional trial version available as a free download from the company's website.

Computing » Greenies Give Google 'Good Example' Props

Google has opened the books on the amount of power it needs to run its multitude of data centers and services worldwide. The grand total is enough to power 41 Empire State Buildings. Environmental groups have praised Google's move toward transparency and recognized the company's green initiatives, though they questioned claims that the company is carbon neutral.

For the first time in the search engine's history, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) revealed just how much electricity it takes to power its massive computing infrastructure.

Google announced that for the year 2010, it used 2.6 million megawatt-hours of energy to run its data centers, search mechanisms, Gmail, YouTube and display ads globally. That number is about what it would take to power 200,000 homes in the U.S. each year, or equal to what it takes to power 41 Empire State Buildings annually.

The search engine giant uses a new illustrated report to explain the amount of energy it consumes and to promote its green efforts. Until now, the data was a closely guarded secret.

Green, but Could Be Greener

Environmental groups praised Google's announcement Thursday. Greenpeace in particular has been meeting with Google and other high-profile tech companies to encourage them to set an example.

"In the last two years, Google has actually made significant power improvements. They finally realized they had a competitive advantage to tell their story, and we certainly gave them a hard time to do that. You can be carbon neutral and you can be doing lots of great investments, but until you tell people about it and educate, you're not really doing as much to help," Gary Cook, IT analyst for Greenpeace International, told TechNewsWorld.

Some of the advances Google has made include trying to build energy-efficient data centers and taking growing notice of its carbon footprint, one that the company touted as carbon neutral or even "beyond zero." Its reasoning is that since tools like Gmail and rapid searches increase productivity and reduce waste, that offsets the footprint.

While Google has made giant steps in reducing emissions, Greenpeace says the zero carbon footprint is difficult to measure and probably not quite true.

"Google and other IT companies certainly do have significant opportunities to reduce emissions in other parts of the economy, especially if the data centers are attached to clean energy sources and can reduce consumption in other areas, but there's not really good evidence beyond anecdotal evidence for saying that Google is carbon neutral yet," said Cook.

Why the Big Reveal?

Google didn't respond to TechNewsWorlds' questions about why it chose to put out the information now, but as companies begin to compete more aggressively for a growing cloud computing market, Google may have decided transparency is the best policy in regard to its green effort in the tech space.

"This could be taking a page out of Facebook's initiative -- that's a company that has been a little more transparent as far as energy," Rick Summer, an analyst with Morningstar, told TechNewsWorld.

Other tech leaders such as Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) have also gone public with energy consumption numbers in an effort to win investors and consumers on the cost-effective and socially friendly benefits that come with green policies. High-profile companies, especially in the tech industry, tend to follow each other with these types of major announcements.

"It's good overall for the industry. They don't always have an incentive for running efficiently with power, but folks like Facebook, Google and Microsoft can really be the catalyst for innovating data centers," said Summer.

The hope among environmental groups is that Google's announcement and the appeal of the cloud industry will lead to further transparency and a focus on green initiatives in the future.

"I think it's great they're putting their numbers out there, and I hope other companies do the same," said Cook.