While I agree with the FSF that Amazon isn't doing anything particularly special, they're missing the point of this being in the news. It's not about them releasing the software, but showing how Linux is being used in highly successful products. While Amazon releasing the code is nothing particularly special, showcasing the fact that the most popular e-book reader out there is running Linux is. I would also hope that this may lead to other good open source ebook projects.

Why is the FSF displeased? Can anyone explain why?

It seems to me this is a win-win situation.

The problem with Kindle is that the still use DRM to restrict users' rights. DRM is DRM, regardless of whether its on a GNU/Linux distro, a Linux kernel, or some other form of free software.
To put it in a fairly extreme way: It's like if if you were kidnapped and robbed of your freedoms, but, hey, the handcuffs are fuzzy.

@Marx

DRMed media is a way of doing business and non-DRMed media is another. This is not a weakness or a shortcoming. Without DRM an e-reader wouldn't have been possible because it wouldn't get publishers on-board and Amazon wouldn't have produced the Kindle. Not that I have a special place in my heart for DRM, but a rose has its thorns you know.

The problem isn't with DRM. If a company wants to safeguard information they provide you so be it. The problem is the existence of intellectual monopoly laws and the supplemental laws providing enforcement of them. Amazon has the right to use DRM. They don't have the right to use the government to go after those who try to break it.

This applies to FOSS licenses too. It is illegitimate for the FSF to use government to safeguard how they'd like to use their code. If you don't want people to use it in a way you don't like... don't release it to them or simply ostracize those who don't rerelease their changes. These people can't have it both ways. Either intellectual property laws are to be followed or not. If you can force them to open their code because of it's license they can force you not to crack their DRM because of it's license.

Now that we know it runs Linux; how long will it be before some dipstick puts KDE or Gnome on it?

@bile

What is copyright except how content producers (and superlatively, "owners") use the government to safeguard how they'd like others to use their content?

The theory is that they get the copyright in exchange for their works entering the public domain and benefiting everyone. That's *what* copyright is for, what it's always been for, and it's only in recent years that people have been getting turned around on this- first in mind-share, and then in-law.

Disney (for example), could never have made the Jungle Book, or Snow White, if it weren't for these stories (being written by someone else- and in the case of the Jungle book, only a few years prior) going into the public domain. The *people* benefited because of the work that Disney brought to the table, and *Disney* benefited because they could use a wonderful story to leverage their (increasingly technical) expertise!

But now, copyright is eternal, and the public domain is dead. Copyright has even been weaponized thanks to DRM and the DMCA, and mind-share is turning, as in your case, toward copyright being an *entitlement*, instead of a privilege and a temporary suspension of *our* rights; the rights to copy, to amend, and to change.

The FSF thought the GPL was a great way to turn copyright in on itself, and provide a platform for truly meaningful invention, but thanks to DRM, Amazon can obey the letter of the law while simultaneously spitting on the spirit.

By even using the term "intellectual property" seriously, you are giving up the right to read- the right to talk about a movie- the right to sing along to a song, and accept simply exercising *privileges* granted to you by the "property holder"!

I think the very idea of owning a thought is absurd, as did the designers of Copyright itself. They thought it useful to grant a temporary monopoly on a thought to encourage the publishing of thoughts. I can support and accept that without having to support your straw man of intellectual-property or lawlessness.

Furthermore, I think Amazon is further despicable for exercising the freedoms to change and use programs other people wrote, while taking advantage of a loophole (DRM) to prevent others from enjoying those freedoms.

@Kirk

I don't think the FSF is displeased; this blog post is just sensationalistic. "FSF not impressed" should be taken literally, meaning that Amazon did not do anything unusual.

Run 'man gpl' and see Section 2. Did Amazon modify any of the gpl code they got when they started distributing this unit? If so, they "...must cause any work [they] distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from The Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

Seems to me this must include the DRM code they include with Kindle. Is that Open-Sourced by Amazon?

@anonymous:

The problem isn't amazon. They're a company trying to sell goods made by a third party. The only way they can get that particular good (ebooks for the kindle) is to have DRM on it. Unlike the pressure Apple was able to put on the music industry, Amazon doesn't have that leverage in the kindle arena. Sure it's been successful, but only relative to other attempts at e-book readers. If the publishing industry lost the kindle market (or ebook market in general) it wouldn't be but a drop in the bucket, so Amazon has almost no leverage. I can understand how you can be angry because including it isn't in the spirit of the GPL, but I'm usually of the opinion that if they don't break the license, then they can use it for anything they want. It's about freedom right?

As for the issue with copyrights, I have to say I think intellectual property does need protection, and i have no problem with copyrights. If they want to put DRM on their property, that's fine...it is however your choice not accept those limitations that DRM presents and not buy it. It's already happened with digital music, and the RIAA despite it's strongest efforts had to give in and remove DRM. I think the real issue in the digital world is software patents. They tend to be vague, and describe general computing processes, not implementations. I find them to be like patenting a device that emits light, not the actual design you use to accomplish that. But IP protection in and of itself is not a bad thing. Without it companies like Microsoft could steal anything they want, have the resources to deploy it more quickly, advertise it and take that persons hard work without ever giving them credit or compensation. Copyright is the only reason the GPL exists. It protects the actual code. It protects open source code and it protects proprietary code. Either way that is a GOOD thing. You might not like proprietary companies, but it is their RIGHT to not share the code they wrote, just like it is your right to demand if someone uses your code they must share their changes. In both cases copyright is what protects abuses of either set of code.

FSF comprises of a bunch of idealistic thinkers for whom everything should be free. It is absolutely not possible in a capitalistic society.

Amazon has no control over the DRM rights, these are dictated by authors and publishers and all Amazon is doing is offering a new medium while abiding by the GPL licenses.

If everything left to FSF - everything would be free. They are at the other end of the spectrum from Microsoft and are equally bad.

@Roland

In my understanding (and I'm by no means an expert), as long as they didn't use GPL code or libraries in their implementation of the DRM, or write it directly into the GPLed code I don't think they do. Just because it runs on Linux doesn't mean it has to be GPL. However if you use pre written libraries you would have to follow the license of those libraries (which can vary). It's perfectly feasible to write proprietary programs on Linux, except there are many places where you'd have to reinvent the wheel, or use libraries with more permissive licenses than the GPL.

Not particulary impressive that they use Linux (doesn't everyone) or that they released mod's to GPL code (they have to)....

It _will_ be impressive if a group of hackers can now get together and provide alternative firmwares for these devices and make them do cool stuff (just like the OpenWRT guys did with Linksys routers).

Q. If they do, do they still get the free GPRS datalink?

That said, there may be sufficient Tivo-isation which would prevent the devices actually running any non-signed code.

I've been thinking that the Kindle (or a future version of it) could end up being the savior of the dieing newspaper industry. The problem with the newspapers is the distribution of the information is obsolete and inconvenient. The Kindle with it's wireless downloading of new documents could end up being what the papers need, a convenient way to get information.

Roger Wyatt's Blog

I'm completely impressed by Amazon's ingenuity!

Of all the tech companies, it took only a web store to invent, create and mass market a piece of technology based on Linux.

What a feat!

I can't wait to see all the Linux hackers start hacking out a customized firmware distro for this linux device. Once this take holds, I'm sure there's going to be even more of a huge boast in sales. (ie. WRT54G using DDWRT firmware.)

Cheers!

DRM is ALWAYS a bad thing. It is detrimental to the rights of the end user/purchaser. The prices of e-books and e-book readers are both far too high! Eliminate the DRM, and bring prices down to something reasonable, and I might consider buying. Whats reasonable? To me, $50-$75 for the reader, and $2.00 or less for e-books in a non-DRMed format.