Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Posted Sep 22, 2006 22:27 UTC (Fri) by ajross
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
The anti-Tivoization argument is even less broadly accepted (as the
kernel developers show here). I believe it extends the notion of the
first freedom unacceptably and without any roots in essential fairness.
This is the part that I just don't see. Stated as simply as possible,
the philosophy behind the GPL says: "You can use this, as long as you
share it." This is, to me (and maybe you see the license in a
different moral light) a really, painfully obvious
for any definition of "essential fairness". I give it to you, so you
need to be willing to give it to others. Sounds fair to me, no?
But the DRM use case breaks down here. A DRM-encumbered device
clearly is not "sharing" the code in any meaningful way. None
at all. But it is, at least technically, within the scope of the
license as written. So the FSF has amended the license to prevent
this particular loophole. What I just can't understand is how
opposition to this change is being explained as support of "freedom"
or "fairness". This doesn't seem like "freedom" or "fairness" to me
at all. If I had to pick a word for it, it would be: "cheating".
I see a lot more validity in the practical arguments that the
additions to the GPLv3 are too large, or too complicated, or too
risky. But people (important people, even) are arguing here that
those changes are unfair and unfree, and I'm at a total loss to
understand their logic.
to post comments)