Posted on 08/28/2007 9:43:45 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
This guest whitepaper explains how hypervisors can isolate proprietary software from GPLv2 and GPLv3-licensed software. Authored by a Trango product manager, it uses Trango's hypervisor as an example, showing how the technology could help safeguard copyright-encumbered multimedia content in a video playback device with a user-modifiable Linux OS component.
The paper was written by Bruno Zoppis, a former Sun Microsystems software engineer who now manages products for Trango. Alongside Trango's "Virtual Processors" technology, Zoppis appears to consider products from VMWare, IBM, and Sun Microsystems as falling into the "hypervisor" product category.
Zoppis begins with an introduction to GPL licensing, including the differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3. Discussion focuses on "anti-tivoization" language in GPLv3, which interdicts locking hardware to the stock firmware -- for example to prevent the device from functioning with user-modified firmware.
After acknowledging that Linux itself likely will not move to GPLv3, Zoppis notes that many other open source projects already have. For example, Samba -- popular in myriad consumer electronics gadgets because it lets Linux devices use Windows networks -- has been licensed under GPLv3 since release 3.2.0. Using GPLv3-licensed software such as Samba could put the onus on devicemakers to open their hardware, a potential liability for devices that handle content vulnerable to theft, such as copyrighted material.
As a work-around, Zoppis suggests the use of hypervisors such as Trango's products. He writes, "In the same way an operating system can simultaneously run multiple applications, with different licenses, the virtual machines that run on the hypervisor do not need to be of the same license."
Zoppis then outlines a typical use case, sketching out a device that streams proprietary video. Linux provides the UI, networking, and so on, but handles only scrambled video data, handing it off to a proprietary, closed video playback executive via a chunk of shared memory. "The bootstrap sequence checks the integrity of the hypervisor," Zoppis writes, "but not the GPL VM code," enabling users to freely modify the Linux environment.
Zoppis probably explains it better than I have; read the whole paper to learn more. The paper is entitled, "Using a hypervisor to reconcile GPL and proprietary embedded code," and is available here.
I wonder how Stallman likes that one. Him speaking out against this will show he's simply anti-business and wants to control the actual hardware that GPL3 software runs on.
bttt
Obviously. Just what I was thinking. What took them so long? I’ll take three hypervisors and a dozen GPLv2s.
There’s a serious misconception in this report.
beebers on stune.
You gotta love this. It appears people are always looking for ways to get around the abuse of copyright found in many licenses, and now the most contentious, abusive provision of the GPL3 (that tries to control hardware) may just be moot.You don't get it. The whole point of GPL software is that anybody using GPL'ed software have to allow users to modify and improve it. All this hardware lockin bs is so contrary to the spirit of the license it boggles the mind. The GPL3 just addresses that fact.
I wonder how Stallman likes that one. Him speaking out against this will show he's simply anti-business and wants to control the actual hardware that GPL3 software runs on.
Since when did the idea of Stallman being anti-business need to be re-proven? The guy’s a borderline anarchist.
I have a different view. For the sake of discussion, I'll use "Stallman" when referring to authors of GPL3 software in general.
Stallman is within his rights under copyright to control the distribution of his software. He requires that the code for any improvements (derivative works) distributed also be released. TiVO releases their DVR-related improvements, helping people to build their own DVRs. That is within the spirit as it is to me.
Stallman doesn't just want to control his code though -- he wants to control the hardware and firmware that is designed by other people using none of his copyrighted works. The intent is to tell TiVO that they can't use GPL3 software and still be able to lock down their hardware, even if they release all of their improvements to the code.
Trying to control hardware and firmware designed by others is an attempt to stretch copyright beyond its intention, to abuse copyright. It is just as bad as what is done by many corporations in their proprietary licenses.
ROFL you’ve been defending that green party moonbat and his commie-viral licenses for years, then the day it’s technically circumvented post this pathetic piece of criticism. There’s also reports a federal judge issued a statement addressing another open source license and may rule it’s a contract, not a license, handicapping the moonbats ability to use the courts to attack users of their falsely named “free” software.
I have spoken out against this term of the GPL3 before. Quit trying to poison another thread with your lies.
So Stallman finally showed enough of his commie colors even you are turning on him? Where did you post your objections to GPL3 before? Going to boycott his software and his license where ever possible like me or is this just more of your normal double talk?
I did long ago.
Where did you post your objections to GPL3 before?
I'll have to look it up. It'll be easier since you've provided links to a lot of threads full of your old lies, and I ran across it on one of those recently. Specifically, I called him a "bastard" for wanting to control hardware. I told you long ago I sided with Linus on this.
Going to boycott his software and his license where ever possible like me
Why? I don't boycott Microsoft or Apple for their even more abusive license terms: Apple specifying you can only run the OS on their machines and Microsoft saying you can't publish benchmarks without their permission. Ready to boycott Apple and Microsoft?
Let's make a deal: I'll boycott the local use of computers running Linux. I'll even dump my Linksys router since I use it locally and it is technically a computer running Linux. In return you boycott the local use of computers running Microsoft and Apple operating systems.
I didn’t think you’d back your words up with any real action against the FSF moonbats. And why would I boycott Apple or Microsoft? Great American companies, not green party whackos that go to Cuba constantly and want to destroy US intellectual property laws like Stallman’s gang.
I didn't think you'd back your words up with any real action and stop using Linux -- as in stop posting to Free Republic.
I’m not running it myself, nor do I recommend anyone else does, too many better options out there. Linux use has fallen too, not only server sales figures but browser counters. Apple and Microsoft, record profits.
OSS Ping..
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
On servers as well, Windows is growing, while Linux is falling in comparison, here's a very recent report from Wall Street and some quotes from it below, similar reports are out as well:
Microsoft picked up 2 percentage points, bringing its market share to 67.1% of servers shipped during the second quarter, according to data from Gartner. Of 2.06 million servers shipped overall, nearly 1.4 million came preloaded with the proprietary OS.
Linux accounted for 22.8% of server shipments, down from 23.1% the year before.
I said nothing about servers. I made the embedded application point. Most new products are using one or another Linux distro. I don’t see a single point I made that you corrected as being incorrect.
As far as you making thw Apple/BSD/Linux comment. BSD is offered as open source. Linux is offered as open source.
Apple is selling an open source product.
Lately, there isn’t much practical difference between BSD and Linux.
The big difference is that BSD is integrated and what you conceive as Linux is actually Linux and a load of other software. Most of the BSD packages that are integrated together, are found in most Linux distributions.
Most computer professionals would recognize that BSD and Linux share a most of the same packages. Looking at your post history you seem to have an axe to grind about Linux.
Like I said before market forces drive open source just as they drive for profit software design. Without companies using open source for profit and contributing to it; there would be no FSF.
I can practically guarantee you that difference is less than the margin of error on the survey. IOW, it is meaningless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.